Another Dick*head Cardinal

Barr125

Awh, I was starting to enjoy watching crucamim dig a massive hole to bury himself in XD

Sarky

What a bizarre person.

Doctor Jimbob

Complaining about hate towards a specific group (catholics) while spouting hate about a specific group (gay people). It really does take a special kind of stupidity.

The word kind reminded me of creationism.

I need to leave this forum.

Doc Farrell

In fairness, the pottymouth vulgarity of the thread title was only going to attract a crunchier kind of opposition. I've always enjoyed the wit of the more intelligent moderate atheist voice, rather than plain old unpleasant animosity. And as any Jesuit worth his salt will tell you, honey attracts more bees then vinegar.
And yes I did use the phrase 'pottymouth vulgarity'. I am officially middle aged.

joseph brand

Doc Farrell wrote: »

In fairness, the pottymouth vulgarity of the thread title was only going to attract a crunchier kind of opposition. I've always enjoyed the wit of the more intelligent moderate atheist voice, rather than plain old unpleasant animosity. And as any Jesuit worth his salt will tell you, honey attracts more bees then vinegar.
And yes I did use the phrase 'pottymouth vulgarity'. I am officially middle aged.

The regular posters in here were quite moderate in their language throughout the thread. The thread title got up someone's nose and they lost the rag. The poster wasn't just angry, but slightly deranged.

As a non-Jesuit, I would not want to attract a bee like 'crucamim'.

And btw, Atheists SHOULD be p*ssed off and angry.

Doc Farrell

I wouldnt recommend it, it interferes with ones digestion.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

What a bizarre person.

It's worth googling "crucamim" and seeing what comes up -- no idea if they're all by the same poster, but if so, then crucamim's been banging the same rather sad, nutty drum for years.

mikhail

Galvasean wrote: »

FWIW I know many Christians (mostly Catholics) and many are very good friends. None of them spout the horrible stuff being said by certain ones that we see on this thread.

I'm fairly sure my dad could top this guy if he didn't live in mortal fear of computers. There's a generation or two out there yet with an appreciable percentage of people who think like that. Don't let the passive majority lull you into thinking otherwise.

Doc Farrell

mikhail wrote: »

Galvasean wrote: »

FWIW I know many Christians (mostly Catholics) and many are very good friends. None of them spout the horrible stuff being said by certain ones that we see on this thread.

I'm fairly sure my dad could top this guy if he didn't live in mortal fear of computers. There's a generation or two out there yet with an appreciable percentage of people who think like that. Don't let the passive majority lull you into thinking otherwise.

I think you have a moral duty to teach your Dad how to use the Internet! Most young Catholics I meet are the new wishy washy, liberally, touchy feely compassionate type! We need less of this caring sharing stuff and more old skool Hell and Damnation! Get him on board!

Sarky

Yes, the more loonies showing everyone why their religion is creepy and dangerous the better!

joseph brand

mikhail wrote: »

I'm fairly sure my dad could top this guy if he didn't live in mortal fear of computers. There's a generation or two out there yet with an appreciable percentage of people who think like that. Don't let the passive majority lull you into thinking otherwise.

My Dad told me recently that ALL gay men are paedophiles. Even my religious mother was shocked.

My Dad has to be one of the nicest people around, but when religion dictates his world views, he can come across as obnoxious.

Religion: Making good people say and do nasty, stupid sh1t for over 2,000 years.

Ellis Dee

It's been fun following the debates that this silly sky pilot's statements have triggered in UK newspapers. But he has plenty of form in that respect. :rolleyes:

My own view is that this is all part of a campaign by his church to try and regain some lost ground. Naturally, he and the sinister forces behind him are being selective as well. They are opposing the idea of the state allowing marriage to be anything other than a union between a man and a woman, but are not doing anything to try and have divorce banned. We only need look back less than twenty years to see how the KF church fought tooth and nail to prevent divorce being legalised in Ireland - despite the fact that tens of thousands of unions had irrevocably broken down. No, sirree, that church will not open its gob about divorce in Britain; after all, it was divorce that led to the Church of England breaking away from Rome.:)

Marriage is another matter entirely, because the church and the cardinal know that there is always a rich vein of ignorance- and fear-inspired homophobia to tap into, and they can also rely on some of the bolshier Islamics putting pressure on the government as well.:eek:

Naturally, all the heat, light, hot air and steam that the gay marriage controversy will stir up is bound to come in handy as a means of diverting attention from the many, many questions that the Church of Rome still has to answer about kiddy-fiddling and its cover up of it.

Incidentally, something that none of the posters in this thread so far seem to have noticed is that this Scottish whacko is not a Scottish whacko at all. In fact, he's an Irish whacko - from Ballycastle, Co. Antrim.

A Scottish friend just pointed this out to me and I'm still looking for a crack in the floor to creep into.:o:o

Galvasean

Ellis Dee wrote: »

CONTEXT

This image needs it...

Whoknos

crucamim wrote: »

Who raped the minors? Was it gays who happened to be priests?

No, it was paedophiles who happened to be priests. I am not religious but not anti religious either but you are presenting a very ignorant and unfortunately dangerous viewpoint here.
Gay men have sex with other men. To achieve this they try to seek out other gay men, as trying to have sex with straight men will generally prove fruitless.
Straight men have sex with women. To achieve this they try to seek out straight women, as trying to have sex with gay women will generally prove fruitless.
Rapists want to rape. This is by and large not a sexually motivated crime, but is used instead to express dominance over the victim. This accounts for situations such as straight men going to prison and raping other men for example.
In cases where the crime is sexually motivated, is the sexuality of the perpetrator important? I am a straight man, but if I rape a woman I am a rapist - the same applies across the board.
I commend you on your faith, particularly considering the adversity the faithful must face in today's world. However, I would implore you to educate yourself before judging people as you have done here - let he who is without sin and all that. Also, isn't judgement reserved for the Almighty?

Sonics2k

Whoknos wrote: »

No, it was paedophiles who happened to be priests. I am not religious but not anti religious either but you are presenting a very ignorant and unfortunately dangerous viewpoint here.
Gay men have sex with other men. To achieve this they try to seek out other gay men, as trying to have sex with straight men will generally prove fruitless.
Straight men have sex with women. To achieve this they try to seek out straight women, as trying to have sex with gay women will generally prove fruitless.
Rapists want to rape. This is by and large not a sexually motivated crime, but is used instead to express dominance over the victim. This accounts for situations such as straight men going to prison and raping other men for example.
In cases where the crime is sexually motivated, is the sexuality of the perpetrator important? I am a straight man, but if I rape a woman I am a rapist - the same applies across the board.
I commend you on your faith, particularly considering the adversity the faithful must face in today's world. However, I would implore you to educate yourself before judging people as you have done here - let he who is without sin and all that. Also, isn't judgement reserved for the Almighty?

So much wrong with this, I don't even know where to start.

Whoknos

is that your entire argument against the points raised? have you debated in the past?!

Galvasean

TBH, I don't see anything much wrong with Whoknos' post either.

Sonics2k

I actually retract my previous comment, I'd completely misread it and took it up the wrong way.

My apologies Whknos

Dades

Thank Odin for that. I thought I was going to have to rethink my worldview. :pac:

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Thank Odin for that. I thought I was going to have to rethink my worldview. :pac:

I think it was the first time I found myself disagreeing with Sonics2k on anything...

Pizza?

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

Pizza?

Cheese at this time on a schoolnight? You must be mad.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Cheese at this time on a schoolnight? You must be mad.

I was talking to Sonic sheesh! :rolleyes:

Sonics2k

Nothing happened! Move along! Nothing to see here people!

Barr125

I'm wondering why Robindch thanked the post....?

Galvasean

Barr125 wrote: »

I'm wondering why Robindch thanked the post....?

Had me wondering too. A similar misreading perhaps?
There was I re-reading the post several times to see just what it was I was missing :P

robindch

Barr125 wrote: »

I'm wondering why Robindch thanked the post....?

Basically coz I agree with Sonics2k's original notion that whoknos' post has got a few things back to front, where it's possible to establish anything specific and/or non-obvious to start with. To wit:

The post can be read to mean (and I originally took it to mean) that clerical sex abusers were padeophiles before they were priests. I don't think this is the case, and believe that situation and opportunity as experienced by catholic clerics is what led to the majority of the abuse scandals, not a predisposition on the part of pedophiles to become priests.

I'm not sure what the bit about gay and straight men seeking out compatible partners has to do with anything -- it's tautologous, as well as appearing to suggest that sexuality is a black and white phenomenon; I don't believe it is.

Rapists? Some people certainly do want to rape in order to exert dominance, but not having reliable stats to hand, I don't believe that it's anything close to all cases of rape. Again, I incline to the belief that situation and opportunity (and drink, drugs and much else) play a large part. I'm assuming, btw, that rape is defined as non-consensual sex.

And as for the commending crucamim for his faith in the face of such adversity? Well, given what crucamim's been producing on A+A for the last few days, a commendation is the last thing (s)he should be getting.

Cleary-uppy?

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

The post can be read to mean (and I originally took it to mean) that clerical sex abusers were padeophiles before they were priests. I don't think this is the case, and believe that situation and opportunity as experienced by catholic clerics is what led to the majority of the abuse scandals, not a predisposition on the part of pedophiles to become priests.

probably veering into a different debate, but it does open the challenge that if people can be born gay, is there anything to say they can't be born paedophiles?
that said, there is the all important distinction between paedophilia and pederasty.

on the subject of motivation behind rape, i assume you've read 'the blank slate'?

Whoknos

robindch wrote: »

Basically coz I agree with Sonics2k's original notion that whoknos' post has got a few things back to front, where it's possible to establish anything specific and/or non-obvious to start with. To wit:

The post can be read to mean (and I originally took it to mean) that clerical sex abusers were padeophiles before they were priests. I don't think this is the case, and believe that situation and opportunity as experienced by catholic clerics is what led to the majority of the abuse scandals, not a predisposition on the part of pedophiles to become priests.

I'm not sure what the bit about gay and straight men seeking out compatible partners has to do with anything -- it's tautologous, as well as appearing to suggest that sexuality is a black and white phenomenon; I don't believe it is.

Rapists? Some people certainly do want to rape in order to exert dominance, but not having reliable stats to hand, I don't believe that it's anything close to all cases of rape. Again, I incline to the belief that situation and opportunity (and drink, drugs and much else) play a large part. I'm assuming, btw, that rape is defined as non-consensual sex.

And as for the commending crucamim for his faith in the face of such adversity? Well, given what crucamim's been producing on A+A for the last few days, a commendation is the last thing (s)he should be getting.

Cleary-uppy?

I know my post was overly simplistic regarding sexuality and the motivations behind same, but when the point I was trying to correct was that child abuse by performed by priests against teenage boys proved that these were simply "gay men who happened to be priests" you really do just have to go back to basics I believe. And although my summation was simplistic, it remains scary how many people still would agree with the gay priests viewpoint. If it can be dis-proven in the the most simple terms, then more complex studies can be attempted afterwards.
Re the commendation, I'm just a little sick of the us against them when it comes to religion. There is no right answer (although quite a lot of wrong ones), so rather than belittle everyone for their faith I have, of late, attempted to make a conscious effort to be more tolerant of the beliefs of others. If it makes things any easier, I also commend you on your lack of faith :P

robindch

Whoknos wrote: »

[...] it remains scary how many people still would agree with the gay priests viewpoint.

Given what the church and its priesthood say about gay people, it's hardly surprising that gays are believed to be behind the whole mess, so to speak.

But as above, the evidence, so far as I'm aware of it, is that sexuality is not something that's 100% one way or the other, and neither is attraction to under-18's - there's a scale which is different for each person, and which is tempered strongly by situation and opportunity.

Assuming that paedophiles are not selectively joining up as priests -- and I suspect there might be an interesting debate about the first and second-order influences there -- the primary conclusion that I can tentatively come to is that something within the daily business of the catholic church is causing "normal" men to behave "abnormally". And that's something that's not been followed up with much energy, at least to my knowledge anyway, despite what must be a pretty massive body of evidence at this point.

Whoknos wrote: »

rather than belittle everyone for their faith I have, of late, attempted to make a conscious effort to be more tolerant of the beliefs of others.

In these parts, I'd imagine that most people will respect the right of each individual to hold a belief, but not to respect the belief itself -- a lot of religious people seem to have a lot of trouble, intentional or otherwise, distinguishing the two.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

if people can be born gay, is there anything to say they can't be born paedophiles?

Not to my knowledge.

magicbastarder wrote: »

on the subject of motivation behind rape, i assume you've read 'the blank slate'?

I'm currently reading Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature which is pretty good, but I'm familiar with the general "blank slate" notion, and it's not a view I hold to. If TBS has some hard data on the motivations for violent crimes, it would be interesting to hear it.