Misogyny, Guns, Rape and Culture..

[GeoffP]

And here I thought we weren't going to talk. A sad result for a grey Thursday.

Considering how you've been getting away with it for years against Muslims and Islam (remember your vapid responses to the '9/11 Mosque?'), that is kind of funny coming from you. Let me guess, you're Catholic today? Still teetering on the fence as to what you will be? Or do you just make that decision based on what you wish to pick on to complain about?

I make the decision based on an undeific morality, which in the eyes of Tiassa - off and on - is non-existant, or at least unrooted. It's amusing to watch you dance around when someone spears your major domo for doing the very kind of thing he pretends to abhor, sometimes - or at the least blows up and narrates for effect, as he did with me. So it's not much good whining about being held to an actual standard that you interpret liberally as befits your own prejudices. Sowwy. Need a hanky?

Now, are you going to argue that the laws in Ireland, when it came to forcing this teenage rape victim to remain pregnant until she was viable, is not based on the country's Catholic beliefs?

Interesting. Because, you see, when I criticize Islamic law that allows hatred and misogyny that's somehow 'bigoted', but when you make actually vapid connections without any kind of mitigating conceptualisation - or at least language - that's somehow not. Would you care to explain yourself?

And you want to whine that Tiassa said the word "Catholic"?

It's more how it was used - without refinement, without that nuance that you pay lip service to but can never quiiiite seem to locate yourselves. Biscuit? No good hangwringing about 'warped' priorities either, dude: you and Tiassa presumably have access to the same language I use, so there's really no excuse for it.

I wish you joy of your mirror dialogue, however.

 

[Bells]

And here I thought we weren't going to talk. A sad result for a grey Thursday.

Then what are you doing in my thread?

I make the decision based on an undeific morality, which in the eyes of Tiassa - off and on - is non-existant, or at least unrooted. It's amusing to watch you dance around when someone spears your major domo for doing the very kind of thing he pretends to abhor, sometimes - or at the least blows up and narrates for effect, as he did with me. So it's not much good whining about being held to an actual standard that you interpret liberally as befits your own prejudices. Sowwy. Need a hanky?

Oh, I think we all know how you make your decision. The moral outrage is based solely on who you wish to whine at or about.

But let's look at your particular decision in this case, shall we?

Here we have a case of a country, Governed by laws and a Constitution that is based on Catholic teachings, forcing a teenage rape victim to remain pregnant against her will, to the point where they strapped her down to rehydrate her for weeks on end. And your moral outrage is not against that, but because Tiassa said the word "Catholic". Not Catholics, but Catholic. In other words, the religion and the organisation itself.

Now, I understand that you like to hop up and down when the staff here point out such things, but really GeoffP? In light of what happened, you are going to pitch a fit about "Catholic"? Catholic is the problem and goes right to the heart of the laws that led to this young girl being forced to remain pregnant.

Interesting. Because, you see, when I criticize Islamic law that allows hatred and misogyny that's somehow 'bigoted', but when you make actually vapid connections without any kind of mitigating conceptualisation - or at least language - that's somehow not. Would you care to explain yourself?

I see you still like to copy what people say..

That's the thing. You don't just criticise Islamic law. You criticise Muslims for following their religion and throw in a large amount of Beck style paranoia about Caliphates and take over's. Can you see the difference?

But I'll remind you once again. The laws of Ireland resulted in a teenage rape victim being strapped down and a feeding tube stuck down her throat against her wishes, and forced to remain pregnant because they wished to protect and save the life of the foetus she was carrying.. The result of a rape. And you don't find that morally repugnant? Just the word "Catholic"? Can you tell the difference between right and wrong? Can you see that your hissy fit is misplaced and kind of stupid?

It's more how it was used - without refinement, without that nuance that you pay lip service to but can never quiiiite seem to locate yourselves.

And how else would you describe "Catholic"? Note, he didn't say "Catholics", which if he had, would mean you were correct and he was giving the broad brush. He used the word "Catholic", which points directly to the organisation and the religious doctrine that allowed this horror show to occur in the first place. Perhaps it is you who fails to understand "that nuance", you are demanding is lacking, when it clearly is not lacking.

Biscuit? No good hangwringing about 'warped' priorities either, dude: you and Tiassa presumably have access to the same language I use, so there's really no excuse for it.

I wish you joy of your mirror dialogue, however.

Catholic and Catholics. Can you spot the difference? Can you spot just how your hissy cow is misplaced?

And once again, story about teenage girl being forced to remain pregnant to her rapist, strapped to a bed and a tube forced down her throat against her wishes and the baby cut out of her to assuage some mythical sky daddy and an organisation that hid paedophiles who raped too many children to count. And you want to whine about the word "Catholic".. Nah, you don't have warped priorities at all...

 

[Kittamaru]

you don't have warped priorities at all...

Well, to play devils advocate... when you look at it from the angle that his intent was (most likely) to goad/bait you into replying and generally cause you distress, his "priorities" are exactly where they should be.

Morally speaking, it was disgusting... disgusting, but effective.

 

[wellwisher]

An interesting point to consider is why do women want all the thing men have and do, but men aren't trying as hard to be like women? Men being more like women is being forced on men, and is not their first choice. One does not hear men saying, I want to be more like the women and we need laws to force this to happen.

Women have this obsession about copying the traditions of the men, like they are missing something, if they don't follow the boys. There is a difference, in the way the mind works.

We don't talk about male rights, as much as women's rights, because one is the natural follower and the other is the natural leader. If we pushed for male rights, the female fear is they will fall further behind. They prefer the men be slowed down with legal and social handicaps.

Religions used common sense to see this and figured out how to optimize both to their true natures. They don't lie to the women and tell them what they want to hear like they get with liberalism. If a women asks in she looks fat in that dress, truth may not be the honest man's best friend. Liberals lie better and tend to be acceptable to the females. Oh dear you look the best I have even seen you in that dress, or you should exercise more to firm up? The church will be honest while liberalism is about smiling to the face and gossiping behind the back.

The story of Adam and Eve has Eve listening to a con artist snake instead of her mate, Adam. The snake told her what she wanted to her. If you eat the apple you will be skinny and smart like God. This was not true but made her feel good. Religion traditions says she would have been better off listening to one who loves her instead of a con artist who is looking out for himself. Eve followed a male one way or another but chose the con artist and both got screwed. More women and childen live in poverty since modern eve chose the liberal snake.

 

[Bells]

Well, to play devils advocate... when you look at it from the angle that his intent was (most likely) to goad/bait you into replying and generally cause you distress, his "priorities" are exactly where they should be.

Morally speaking, it was disgusting... disgusting, but effective.

Still a pretty warped hobby.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Liberals lie better

Citation needed.
Otherwise it's safe to assume that, as with so many (all?) of your other, equally flat, assertions, you're talking bollocks.

 

[Bells]

Speaking of warped...

An interesting point to consider is why do women want all the thing men have and do, but men aren't trying as hard to be like women? Men being more like women is being forced on men, and is not their first choice. One does not hear men saying, I want to be more like the women and we need laws to force this to happen.

Well why would you want to have less rights?

Your argument fails spectacularly on numerous fronts. Firstly, women do not want all the things that men have and do. We want equality and equal rights. Only a caveman would equate that to wanting the things that 'men have and do'. Secondly, no one is forcing men to be like women. Society dictates that rape, misogyny, abusing women is not beneficial to all parties concerned. Once again, I understand that a caveman would have difficulty telling the two apart.

Women have this obsession about copying the traditions of the men, like they are missing something, if they don't follow the boys. There is a difference, in the way the mind works.

Pray tell, what tradition are we copying?

Getting an education? Working? Fighting against rape and abuse? Wanting equality? Demanding to be treated like human beings and not chattels?

We don't talk about male rights, as much as women's rights, because one is the natural follower and the other is the natural leader. If we pushed for male rights, the female fear is they will fall further behind. They prefer the men be slowed down with legal and social handicaps.

The many, many jokes about your obvious social handicaps aside, how can you claim that we don't talk about male rights, when that is all we do talk about? People like you equate women's equality and equal rights as a denial or reduction of your "male rights". Which is absurd.

Religions used common sense to see this and figured out how to optimize both to their true natures. They don't lie to the women and tell them what they want to hear like they get with liberalism. If a women asks in she looks fat in that dress, truth may not be the honest man's best friend. Liberals lie better and tend to be acceptable to the females. Oh dear you look the best I have even seen you in that dress, or you should exercise more to firm up? The church will be honest while liberalism is about smiling to the face and gossiping behind the back.

Whoa, back it up..

The Church will be honest?

*Chortle!!!*

Tell that to the thousands of children who were sexually, physically and mentally abused for years and years and the Church hid and protected the abusers.

The story of Adam and Eve has Eve listening to a con artist snake instead of her mate, Adam. The snake told her what she wanted to her. If you eat the apple you will be skinny and smart like God. This was not true but made her feel good. Religion traditions says she would have been better off listening to one who loves her instead of a con artist who is looking out for himself. Eve followed a male one way or another but chose the con artist and both got screwed. More women and childen live in poverty since modern eve chose the liberal snake.

Yes, the snake told Eve to eat the apple to be skinny and smart.. I take it you failed to take a few bites from that apple, huh?

If you think religious traditions help women, then clearly, you have a few problems that you need to address. Religious tradition dictates that women and children who are abused in the home, remain with their husbands and obey, that they be owned and controlled like objects, as one prime example.. Do you think this is a happy medium?

 

[billvon]

An interesting point to consider is why do women want all the thing men have and do

Most women don't want all the things men have and don't want to do all the things men do. They just want the same rights to do so - if they choose.

but men aren't trying as hard to be like women?

Most women aren't trying hard to be men, just as most men aren't trying hard to be women.

One does not hear men saying, I want to be more like the women and we need laws to force this to happen.

Nor do you hear most women say "I want to be more like a man." They just want the same rights as a man.

We don't talk about male rights, as much as women's rights, because one is the natural follower and the other is the natural leader. If we pushed for male rights, the female fear is they will fall further behind. They prefer the men be slowed down with legal and social handicaps.

Are you bitter because you can't get women to follow your command?

 

[GeoffP]

Then what are you doing in my thread?

Why, I had no idea you owned this thread! Is this your excuse for breaking the agreement?

Oh, I think we all know how you make your decision. The moral outrage is based solely on who you wish to whine at or about.

But let's look at your particular decision in this case, shall we?

Here we have a case of a country, Governed by laws and a Constitution that is based on Catholic teachings, forcing a teenage rape victim to remain pregnant against her will, to the point where they strapped her down to rehydrate her for weeks on end. And your moral outrage is not against that, but because Tiassa said the word "Catholic". Not Catholics, but Catholic. In other words, the religion and the organisation itself.

The case is naturally reprehensible to the point that it requires no comment. You're not honestly and genuinely stupid enough to be confused about my opinion on the matter. So the issue remaining is the blanket statement: there is room enough in the English language, whether you are cognisant of it or not, to criticise eventuality or incidence, whatever its moral or philosophical foundation, without such generalisation - or more specifically in this instance, without such assassination of assertion. Again, I'd thought - given the outrageous attacks I've experienced for scarcely approaching such a line - that our moral directors would refrain more completely, pour discourager les autres (si je peux direr). As I've said, in that context there's no excuse tenderable for such defamation.

That's the thing. You don't just criticise Islamic law. You criticise Muslims for following their religion and throw in a large amount of

This is precisely the issue here again, though reflected in a mirror dissant: the record's quite clear that I don't do any of that. My position regards the views of those in such elements as seek to appropriate our moral goods and beliefs to something a bit more medieval, which you typically end up defending in that way that you do. Yet here we have direct defamation, not even mitigated by language. I don't expect you to understand it, but it does deserve mention in the context of the wider discussion. Maybe you could stay on topic instead of trying to attribute new dialogue to a conversation you've barely made traction on thus far.

Well, to play devils advocate... when you look at it from the angle that his intent was (most likely) to goad/bait you into replying and generally cause you distress, his "priorities" are exactly where they should be.

Morally speaking, it was disgusting... disgusting, but effective.

I'm not sure which is the more embarrassing here: your inept handling of the concept of "Devil's Advocate", or your fill-in-the-blank approach to the discussion. I suppose you could elaborate. Perhaps you might start with how I forced her to respond, or how that would cause her distress, when my comments were directed at Tiassa. Perhaps, up there in the magic sky, all the mods have become accidentally glued together, or something. Talk about pursuing a providential victimhood - now, you're so desperate for someone to play with, you're not even playing with your own victimhood.

 

[GeoffP]

Citation needed.
Otherwise it's safe to assume that, as with so many (all?) of your other, equally flat, assertions, you're talking bollocks.

It lives! Welcome back.

The motivation to just give up and follow is simple: the human psyche likes it. The anxiety of outcome is stultifyingly sometimes. A few choices are fine, but that sliding scale of all possible selections involved with the intricacies of choice and result is actually paralyzing for some people. For example, I just spelled "paralysing" the American way, and why not? We're all following one herd or another. I'm not to play Devil's Advocate here (witta Kitta should pay attention to this example) but one is tempted to wonder for a moment what the difference would be in the sacrifice of liberties to the id, if only on a temporary basis and under the ultimate guidance of the super-ego at whatever point it decides to speak up.

Of course, that's ultimately bullshit, but whatever.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Religions used common sense. . . .

You have to be joking. Religion is the exact opposite of common sense. Its morality is based on statements made by self-proclaimed "prophets," who claim to have been spoken to by "gods," who live in an invisible, illogical, unnatural universe called "heaven," and pop out at random intervals, usually to cause us grief.

When you start basing an argument on religion, I stop reading. Life is too short to put up with Bronze Age bullshit.

 

[Bells]

Why, I had no idea you owned this thread! Is this your excuse for breaking the agreement?

You broke it first in the other thread, remember? And you did so repeatedly.

The case is naturally reprehensible to the point that it requires no comment. You're not honestly and genuinely stupid enough to be confused about my opinion on the matter.

I don't know you GeoffP. So how would I know what a pro-life person, such as yourself, would find such a case reprehensible? After how you argued that rape was really about sex and you argued against abortion in other threads and did so so vehemently, as far as I am concerned, in a case such as this one, you do appear to be the type to fully support the Church and Ireland's laws and what they did to this girl. That is how you come across.

So the issue remaining is the blanket statement: there is room enough in the English language, whether you are cognisant of it or not, to criticise eventuality or incidence, whatever its moral or philosophical foundation, without such generalisation - or more specifically in this instance, without such assassination of assertion. Again, I'd thought - given the outrageous attacks I've experienced for scarcely approaching such a line - that our moral directors would refrain more completely, pour discourager les autres (si je peux direr). As I've said, in that context there's no excuse tenderable for such defamation.

I'm sorry, how were you affected by his saying "Catholic"? This is a Catholic country, and proudly declares itself as such, its laws are very much based on Catholic teachings. How else would you have described it? Even the articles, from the BBC to other news sites, describe the country, culture and laws as "Catholic" when describing this case. In other words, the laws and doctrines which allowed this case to occur is based solely on the Catholic church and their influence in Ireland. This is fact. They have literally taken the worst the Church has to offer and applied it in their laws and women are suffering for it.. repeatedly.. Just as the Church and its doctrines and its role in Ireland's laws and governance led to a woman dying from a miscarriage that the hospital refused to treat because there was still a foetal heartbeat. The miscarriage and the remains of her pregnancy became infected inside her uterus, entered her blood stream and she died after suffering multiple organ failure. They even refused to operate on her when this started to happen. By the time the heart of the foetus stopped beating, it was too late and she died soon after the doctors operated. She suffered for a week in this way (they didn't really want to give her anything as it could harm the foetus she was miscarrying - yes, it was that bad).. This happened because the laws of Ireland are Catholic. Are you going to deny that it is the case? So I find it difficult to understand how and why you feel abused by it?

Pray tell, how are you defamed by saying that the laws and culture which led to such horror shows is "Catholic"? What does it have to do with you, exactly?

Or are you here simply to not discuss the thread and the subject matter raised in the thread, but to discuss how you are injured by the use of the word "Catholic" to describe Ireland? If that is the case, then take your complaint elsewhere. You are grossly off topic and you are providing absolutely nothing in regards to what this thread is about.

This is precisely the issue here again, though reflected in a mirror dissant: the record's quite clear that I don't do any of that. My position regards the views of those in such elements as seek to appropriate our moral goods and beliefs to something a bit more medieval, which you typically end up defending in that way that you do. Yet here we have direct defamation, not even mitigated by language. I don't expect you to understand it, but it does deserve mention in the context of the wider discussion. Maybe you could stay on topic instead of trying to attribute new dialogue to a conversation you've barely made traction on thus far.

No, I understand that you feel the need for attention and thus, have decided to try to troll a thread about your hurt feelings because someone described Ireland as Catholic and all that entails when it comes to Ireland (laws, doctrines, influence). My advice, take your hurt feelings elsewhere and start a complaint thread about it in the appropriate forum. Or discuss the subject matter of this thread (ie not your personal vendetta and hurt feelings about the word "Catholic") and stop trying to ignore and disregard it. This thread is not about you and your hissy cow. Is that clear enough for you now?

I'm not sure which is the more embarrassing here: your inept handling of the concept of "Devil's Advocate", or your fill-in-the-blank approach to the discussion. I suppose you could elaborate. Perhaps you might start with how I forced her to respond, or how that would cause her distress, when my comments were directed at Tiassa. Perhaps, up there in the magic sky, all the mods have become accidentally glued together, or something. Talk about pursuing a providential victimhood - now, you're so desperate for someone to play with, you're not even playing with your own victimhood.

Take it to an appropriate thread in an appropriate forum. If you feel offended and aggrieved that someone described Ireland as Catholic, take your complaint to the appropriate forum and stop trolling and flaming this thread.

 

[Kittamaru]

Why, I had no idea you owned this thread! Is this your excuse for breaking the agreement?

Well, Bells is the original poster... so there is that.

I'm not sure which is the more embarrassing here: your inept handling of the concept of "Devil's Advocate", or your fill-in-the-blank approach to the discussion. I suppose you could elaborate. Perhaps you might start with how I forced her to respond, or how that would cause her distress, when my comments were directed at Tiassa. Perhaps, up there in the magic sky, all the mods have become accidentally glued together, or something. Talk about pursuing a providential victimhood - now, you're so desperate for someone to play with, you're not even playing with your own victimhood.

I fail to see how or where I've ever played up any kind of "victimhood"... in fact...

As for Defamation... it is only defamation when it is untrue... unfortunately, GeoffP, I've born witness to your selective memory one too many times...

As for how you "forced her" to respond... its simple really... who here would actually allow a false attack against their person go unchallenged?

 

[GeoffP]

You broke it first in the other thread, remember? And you did so repeatedly.

If so, I have diligently ignored you since then, while you have at least twice replied to comments I've made that had not a thing to do with you. Kitta, above, seems concerned about your state: I hope discussion won't contribute to some kind of undue mental immolation.

I don't know you GeoffP.

Well, I know you'll make whatever artful pretensions you require at a given moment - some of them could be found in the sentence you wrote; i.e. "you do appear to be the type to fully support the Church and Ireland's laws and what they did to this girl" - so in a funny functional sort of way, that might actually be true. Should I say that I'm certainly on the side of the victim here? I could. You might even read it. Let's do that and just hope for the best.

I'm sorry, how were you affected by his saying "Catholic"?

I've never seen anyone try to redefine bigotry as only being bigotry if one belongs to the group under attack. I would ask where you found such a... perspective, but in fact I'm probably better off not getting into it. You're not an Irish woman either, are you? If not, how were you affected by this case? Pray tell, what does it have to do with you, exactly? (see below)

Pray tell, how are you defamed by saying that the laws and culture which led to such horror shows is "Catholic"? What does it have to do with you, exactly?

?? Just a moment: I thought you said above that I was "one of those kind of Catholics", but now you seem to think I'm not. Let alone my considerations on theology, I don't think you even know what straw man to attack. Should I hold one up for you? Would me explaining that I was agnostic help your ad hominem in some way?

Or are you here simply to not discuss the thread and the subject matter raised in the thread, but to discuss how you are injured by the use of the word "Catholic" to describe Ireland? If that is the case, then take your complaint elsewhere. You are grossly off topic and you are providing absolutely nothing in regards to what this thread is about.

We could get into this digression in more detail - why this issue has anything to do with you, or why you're pretending that Tiassa was talking about Ireland being Catholic rather than him identifying "misogynist" with "Catholic", but I don't think you could get traction with those concepts either. Is there a proper website for anti-Catholic bigots? It just seems out of place here... well, depending on the speaker, I guess. Anyway, I'm not personally injured by the kind of bigotry that seems to be getting a pass here, but I do find it objectionable (besides being against site rules), and so I'm compelled to comment.

Take it to an appropriate thread in an appropriate forum. If you feel offended and aggrieved that someone described Ireland as Catholic, take your complaint to the appropriate forum and stop trolling and flaming this thread.

Okay, I'll drop this latest violation off with the admins. Thanks for the suggestion.

Well, Bells is the original poster... so there is that.

That is a perfectly ordinary English phrase.

As for Defamation... it is only defamation when it is untrue...

So "misogyny" is "Catholic", then, is it? Hmm.

unfortunately, GeoffP, I've born witness to your selective memory one too many times...

I wonder how you think your wildly askew impression of my personality excuses the loose language above. Strange. Could you explain?

 

[Bells]

If so, I have diligently ignored you since then, while you have at least twice replied to comments I've made that had not a thing to do with you. Kitta, above, seems concerned about your state: I hope discussion won't contribute to some kind of undue mental immolation.

Beg yours?

Well, I know you'll make whatever artful pretensions you require at a given moment - some of them could be found in the sentence you wrote; i.e. "you do appear to be the type to fully support the Church and Ireland's laws and what they did to this girl" - so in a funny functional sort of way, that might actually be true. Should I say that I'm certainly on the side of the victim here? I could. You might even read it. Let's do that and just hope for the best.

Once again, what is the point of your whine in this thread? This thread and this subject is not about you and has nothing to do with you. So why are you here? What is the purpose of your self-righteous anger? It's not about the teenage rape victim forced to remain pregnant to her rapist and then strapped down to a bed and force-fed by a tube shoved down her throat until the child was viable.. It's not about misogyny, rape or gun culture that is often associated with misogyny and rape. Nope, none of that. Your self-righteous anger is because someone described the laws and culture in Ireland which led to this poor girl's horrendous experience as being "Catholic". So I will ask again, what is the purpose of your participation in this thread if you are absolutely incapable of conducting yourself honestly and sticking to the subject? If you are not here to discuss the subject matter, then please, PLEASE, take your hissy fit about the word "Catholic", to describe the laws and culture in Ireland, to the appropriate forum.

I've never seen anyone try to redefine bigotry as only being bigotry if one belongs to the group under attack. I would ask where you found such a... perspective, but in fact I'm probably better off not getting into it. You're not an Irish woman either, are you? If not, how were you affected by this case? Pray tell, what does it have to do with you, exactly? (see below)

What is bigoted about saying that the laws and culture of Ireland is Catholic?

Are you now denying that the culture and laws in Ireland is Catholic? If so, I'd suggest you provide evidence that it is not.

?? Just a moment: I thought you said above that I was "one of those kind of Catholics", but now you seem to think I'm not. Let alone my considerations on theology, I don't think you even know what straw man to attack. Should I hold one up for you? Would me explaining that I was agnostic help your ad hominem in some way?

I want you to show me exactly where I used this exact phrase to describe you.. I want you to link exactly where I said that you were "one of those kind of Catholics" in this thread. Because I can assure you, I never said that sentence that you are now attributing to me as a quote.

Stop lying and take your complaint that someone used the word Catholic to describe Ireland's laws and culture to the appropriate forum.

We could get into this digression in more detail - why this issue has anything to do with you, or why you're pretending that Tiassa was talking about Ireland being Catholic rather than him identifying "misogynist" with "Catholic", but I don't think you could get traction with those concepts either. Is there a proper website for anti-Catholic bigots? It just seems out of place here... well, depending on the speaker, I guess. Anyway, I'm not personally injured by the kind of bigotry that seems to be getting a pass here, but I do find it objectionable (besides being against site rules), and so I'm compelled to comment.

We were discussing the laws and policies in Ireland that are, by any definition, sick, twisted and deeply misogynistic and yes, based on the religious doctrines of the Catholic Church. It is entrenched in their laws and policies. As a result of these laws and policies, misogyny is embedded in society, so much so that women are risking their lives and being forced to give birth to the off-spring of their rapists and relatives who rape them, being forced to remain pregnant even if their lives are at risk if the continue with the pregnancy and even in cases of severe deformity with the foetus or even if the foetus is not viable and will not survive the duration of the pregnancy. These policies are based on the policies of the Church, which has undue influence on the laws of Ireland, so much so that it is even mentioned in their laws and Constitution. Now, I understand that you have a bee up your proverbial backside because you think that Tiassa just accused all Catholics as being misogynists, he clearly did not. Your inability to read the English language without having some kind of breakdown over your zeal to pick a fight with people about your own clear misunderstanding aside, this thread's topic is clear from the outset.

There was nothing objectionable in his comment that Ireland's policies and misogynistic and dangerous laws are based on the doctrines and policies of the Catholic Church.

If you have an issue with discussing the absolute misogyny in society, then please, please take it up with admin and take your ridiculous assertion and obvious misrepresentation and misunderstanding to them as well and stop flaming and trolling this thread. If you are incapable of discussing the subject matter of this thread, then don't participate in it. If all you want to do is complain that someone described Ireland's laws and policies as being Catholic or based on Catholic doctrines, then please, start your own thread in the appropriate forum.

Okay, I'll drop this latest violation off with the admins. Thanks for the suggestion.

Finally!

So "misogyny" is "Catholic", then, is it? Hmm.

No, Ireland's laws are misogynistic. Do, please, for the love of all that his holy in your agnostic outlook, try to keep up..

I wonder how you think your wildly askew impression of my personality excuses the loose language above. Strange. Could you explain?

Considering how you are pitching a fit because someone used the word "Catholic" to describe Ireland's laws and culture...

 

[Tiassa]

Strange Times

(sigh)

You know, I sometimes joke that it's scary when I find myself agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, or Pat Buchanan. It's happened at least once with each. Buchanan actually chose policy over party and criticized something having to do with the Bush war policy, and it wasn't so bad, though virtually any dissenting voice could start with a handful of easily accessible facts about the war and sound pretty damn reasonable. To the one, it was a safe position. To the other, at least he still took it. With Limbaugh, it's just that we both would prefer the old Red/Blue designations. You know, at least there's that.

Richard Dawkins is someone I share considerably more policy agreements with, but he and I differ greatly in our approach to other fundamental questions.

(via Irish Independent)​

Jenn Selby of the Irish Independent complained that, subsequently, "his ethical values appeared to come a little unstuck" as he responded to a question about Down's Syndrome. Perhaps it is simpler to say that following his tweet about the Church, the discussion seems to have gone downhill. I get his ethical argument, but must dissent on the basis of empirical observation of human beings with Down's Syndrome achieving a reasonable assertion of satisfying quality of life. So ... right. No.

To the one, Selby seems anxious to twist the knife. To the other, well, right. It's Richard Dawkins. Even setting aside the question of atheism, he says enough things pertaining to decisions women are obliged to make about the events and conditions of and within their own bodies that cause shivers to run the spines of many women that Selby has every reason to pile on.

And yet, in the end, it would seem a diverse range of outlooks can concur regarding the extraordinary influence Catholic doctrine and belief wields in Irish society.

The thing is that even Catholics know this is a Catholic outcome. That's why Irish Catholics are appalled. This isn't how it's supposed to go, but Jesus, Mary and Joseph this is what they made.

Irish Catholics aren't going to simply abandon Catholicism. As much as we might loathe talk of renewals of faith—a cliché in my corner of the Universe—what happens when Catholicism appalls Irish Catholics is that they try to redefine their comprehension of Catholic doctrine. The Fifth Amendment to the Bhunreacht, 1973, struck the specific elevation of the Church, and enumerated more denominations. The People took that back by a ridiculous margin. The Eighth Amendment passed by a considerable margin, and further entrenched the Constitutional prohibitions against abortion; this was not the result of a Hindu ethic dominating the discussion, nor a Marxist, nor a Freudian, nor Machiavellian, Muslim, Judaic, Protestant, Reform, atheist, Kantian, Hegelian, or otherwise.

And the pattern is clear. The Eighth Amendment was flawed, according to its opponents, because it allowed abortion in cases endangering the life of the mother; this fear came to pass in their eyes when the Supreme Court ruled in Attorney General v. X, to allow a fourteen year-old rape survivor access to abortion services. The ruling came in March, 1992. X miscarried after the judgment and before undergoing the termination procedure.

Eight months later, the government put before the people the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, in order to make sure no fourteen year-old rape survivor in X's position would ever again be granted abortion access.

By a landslide, the people took this back from their government. Over sixty-five percent of votes cast said no. On that day they also took back other potential state powers, including a specific issue of censorship, and the power to ban pregnant women from traveling abroad.

This was part of a huge struggle. The question wasn't whether abortion should be legal, but how do you answer God.

A six-tenths margin removed the constitutional prohibition of divorce in 1995.

In 2002, they tried the Twelfth again, this time as the Twenty-Fifth. Voters said no by an eight-tenths margin.

It's twenty-two years later, and they are still wrangling over X. The current controversy arises under a 2013 act intended to deal with the damage the nation's abortion laws cause women, an issue forced by the death of Savita Halappanavar.

While Justice O'Flaherty attempted to claim the majority he sided with in X was moot in the controversy following Halappanavar's death, the fact is that because of the 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, Ireland now finds itself embroiled in the current controversy, which in turn leads straight back to X.

Now, all of this, in a policy context, still responds to Catholicism. The Act includes the transformation of conception to the medical definition, implantation (cf., Murray). As opposed to fertilization. Life At Conception Personhood, not Fertilization-Assigned Personhood. This difference was wrested from the Catechismal outlook that consequently demands FAP[sup]†[/sup], just as divorce laws and religious supremacy were wrested from the official Catholic outlook.

And, indeed, the religious supremacy is an important point. De Valera and his fellows wrestled with that question, namely because of the glaringly obvious point. They fended off official state religion because it would seem particularly indecorous and, perhaps more importantly, self-defeating, to fight a bitter war against religious supremacism only to declare a new religious supremacism. And while the war had not yet come to the British settlers in the Americas, it should be sufficient to say that this was Ireland of the twentieth century, not Maryland of the seventeenth. British Protestants sent a clear message to echo through the centuries when they used a religious tolerance act in the Catholic colony, one that respected all trinitarian Christianity to usurp power and institute religious restrictions and suppress Catholic influence in government, favoring Cromwell's Protestant outlook instead. By 1702, Maryland established an official religion, the Church of England, and included offenses such as having one's tongue bored and a fine of twenty pounds, for starters, if one should somehow insult the Trinity. You know, by, say, being Jewish. Or Unitarian. Or ... yeah. And believe it or not, the fight between all sorts of Christians and Unitarianism does indeed center on Nicaea.

The point being that the Irish are smart enough to figure out why to not go with an official religion. And it is true, also, that Irish Catholicism does not come from a triumphal, oppressive heritage such as prior centuries saw in Rome. The current Irish Catholic experience arises from a couple of centuries spent being the ones with their tongues figuratively bored, and much worse literally visited upon their persons for the fact of their beliefs.

They can find a way to reconcile with necessity. The Holy Mother weeps at the state of things: If You test them, forgive them when they fail. You forgave Your Son, who asked to turn His back on everyone in the world. You needed Him to ask. And these are humans, and they will fail.

Hail Mary, full of grace; Our Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.​

And if you believe, then you believe she will. We are human; we are supposed to fail to meet God's expectations. By Catholic doctrine, this is not only inevitable, it is inherent.

Nor can one argue with anything but doctrinal faith that abortion itself isn't part of God's Will any more than Sin itself.

The task is impossible. God will forgive. Or else, well, it turns out they don't really believe all this stuff, and perhaps it's time to start crafting the laws around reality.

And this is the day the Lord hath made; we should rejoice and be glad in it.

Yet, people are appalled. They are in the streets.

This is a Catholic outcome. That is why Irish Catholics are appalled. And at some point, they will have watched one too many lambs sacrificed at the altar of demonstrating piety for the sake of others to witness, and they will say, "Enough."

But to get there, they have to figure out how that works within the structure, or else stop being Catholic. Call your bookies; I can't tell you which will come sooner.

Matthew 25? It is an impossible task. What can you do for which sick stranger? Either way, in these cases, one fails.

But the Irish Catholics are not going to abandon Catholicism. They're just trying to figure out how it works, and for now the outlook is grim. This is gonna take a while.
____________________

Notes:

[sup]†[/sup] cf., III.2.ii(5.2270-2275); while the text repeatedly says conception, this is defined as "the first moment of his existence". Cardinal Ratzinger, in 1987, issued the Church's Instruction on Respect for Human Life:

At the Second Vatican Council, the Church for her part presented once again to modern man her constant and certain doctrine according to which: "Life once conceived, must be protected with the utmost care; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes". More recently, the Charter of the Rights of the Family, published by the Holy See, confirmed that "Human life must be absolutely respected and protected from the moment of conception".

This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the Declaration on Procured Abortion: "From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence ... modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time ... to find its place and to be in a position to act". This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote* resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted. Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.

Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. This doctrinal reminder provides the fundamental criterion for the solution of the various problems posed by the development of the biomedical sciences in this field: since the embryo must be treated as a person, it must also be defended in its integrity, tended and cared for, to the extent possible, in the same way as any other human being as far as medical assistance is concerned.

* The zygote is the cell produced when the nuclei of the two gametes have fused.​

Works Cited:

Selby, Jenn. "Ireland is a civilised country except in this 1 area". Irish Independent. August 20, 2014. Independent.ie. August 21, 2014. http://www.independent.ie/world-new...country-except-in-this-one-area-30526014.html

Murray, C. J. Roche v. Roche. Supreme Court of Ireland. December 15, 2009. Bailii.org. http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2009/S82.html

Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. August 21, 2014. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/

Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2013. Vatican.va. August 21, 2014. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Ratzinger, John Cardinal. Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. February 22, 1987. Vatican.va. August 21, 2014. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...h_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

 

[Kittamaru]

That is a perfectly ordinary English phrase.

So "misogyny" is "Catholic", then, is it? Hmm.

You seem confused on the correlation being made here... if this is honest confusion, and not just an attempted ploy to cause the drama you seem to thrive off of, then it would explain a lot. After all, if you can't follow such a simple thought, it is no wonder you take offense when people call you out for your actions. I would say one track mind... but this is more akin to an N Gauge line...

I wonder how you think your wildly askew impression of my personality excuses the loose language above. Strange. Could you explain?

Simple - I've given up with the niceties and pandering, and will simply call things as I see them... so if you don't wish to be called an asshole, don't act like an asshole.

Myself? I know I'm an asshole...

 

[wellwisher]

What I would like to see would be a social polarization into male and female, instead into rich and poor, black and white, atheist and religious. This is old school and works the best, because even if polarized, male and female have a way of getting close to each other, like all the other polarizations can't. Men and women can argue, and be mars and venus, but they can also make up in be in love. Try that with atheists and religious.

Based on this unique social polarization, the men would now learn to be men, from other men, while women would learn to be women, from other women. Women have never really defined what a women is, but rely on the men to set their traditions and fads. It is always equal rights which mean carbon copy.

I would also use the natural roles of male and female but extrapolate to these to the national social scales. For example, women are traditionally the nurturers thereby putting them in charge of child care, medicine, farming and food, etc, all the way to the highest levels of government. One job of the women is to make sure the national family is fed and healthy, like they would do for the own family. The male is the hunter and defender so he is in charge of research, innovation and military, sort of like it already is.

The current trend of women acting like men and men like women and/or men defining women and women defying men leads to the discontent associated with not being in balance with respect to one's natural nature.

Rape has a connection to feminism. Masculine men, such as conservatives that are accused of misogyny, tend to be harder against crime. Feminized men, like liberals tend to be softer and have compassion even for ax murderers. Pure men would solve the problem of rape, while feminized men tend to perpetuate the problem because they are too wishy washy with respect to black and white. The social polarization of men and women, with men in charge of men, in terms of punishment, would eliminate this problem much faster.

 

[Kittamaru]

What I would like to see would be a social polarization into male and female, instead into rich and poor, black and white, atheist and religious. This is old school and works the best, because even if polarized, male and female have a way of getting close to each other, like all the other polarizations can't. Men and women can argue, and be mars and venus, but they can also make up in be in love. Try that with atheists and religious.

Based on this unique social polarization, the men would now learn to be men, from other men, while women would learn to be women, from other women. Women have never really defined what a women is, but rely on the men to set their traditions and fads. It is always equal rights which mean carbon copy.

I would also use the natural roles of male and female but extrapolate to these to the national social scales. For example, women are traditionally the nurturers thereby putting them in charge of child care, medicine, farming and food, etc, all the way to the highest levels of government. One job of the women is to make sure the national family is fed and healthy, like they would do for the own family. The male is the hunter and defender so he is in charge of research, innovation and military, sort of like it already is.

The current trend of women acting like men and men like women and/or men defining women and women defying men leads to the discontent associated with not being in balance with respect to one's natural nature.

Rape has a connection to feminism. Masculine men, such as conservatives that are accused of misogyny, tend to be harder against crime. Feminized men, like liberals tend to be softer and have compassion even for ax murderers. Pure men would solve the problem of rape, while feminized men tend to perpetuate the problem because they are too wishy washy with respect to black and white. The social polarization of men and women, with men in charge of men, in terms of punishment, would eliminate this problem much faster.

What about men who don't want to or can't be "manly"? I, myself, would likely be included in that - I'm neither ashamed, nor afraid, of my emotions and, while I'm able to reign them in when needed, I am not concerned about letting them show. Case in point, music - there are several songs that reduce me to tears in short order, in large part because of how much they bring back memories of my Grandfather.

In today's view... that's "not masculine" and I'm a "pussy for crying"... to hell with that notion.

 

[billvon]

Rape has a connection to feminism. Masculine men, such as conservatives that are accused of misogyny, tend to be harder against crime. Feminized men, like liberals tend to be softer and have compassion even for ax murderers. Pure men would solve the problem of rape, while feminized men tend to perpetuate the problem because they are too wishy washy with respect to black and white. The social polarization of men and women, with men in charge of men, in terms of punishment, would eliminate this problem much faster.

Exactly. By polarizing men and women into two completely separate categories, and placing them back in their natural roles, the problem would be eliminated, as it was 100 years ago. Once you remove a women's right to lead her family and herself, then there is no rape. Her husband can do whatever he likes to her, since he is her leader, and decides what is best for her. The term "rape" would become meaningless; there would just be sex.

Of course you might still have the problem of someone who was not her husband having sex with her. You could perhaps change that crime to "unauthorized use of another man's property."