G
Genesis315
Guest
A friend of mine at Yale emailed me this. How does one even answer something like this?
yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=30047
yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=30047
- Status
J
JCPhoenix
Guest
Oh, another “enlightened” one triyng to pontificate upon his own “valuable” opinion and therefore validate his expensive yet somehow worthless education.
He contradicts himself so much it’s actually ridiculous. Let me provide an example:
“The idea is that homosexuality is an involuntary condition whose sufferers cannot help but violate innocents entrusted to their care. This logic is incoherent as well as bigoted; it makes no more sense to ask of a pedophile whether he is gay or straight than to ask of a man caught in coito with a dog whether the beast is male or female”
OK, let’s break this down. First he complains that the Pope advances the idea that homosexuality is an involuntary conditions.
HELLO!? Isn’t that EXACTLY what the bleeding-heart hellbound liberals have been trying to beat into we the “intolerant” for years and, that very same idea is the same that they have complained that we argued against??? HELLO??? Is there an echo in his head or is it just me?
Then he complains about incoherent logic. ??? Again, that echo resounds in such an incoherent way. I find that ironic, given his words.
I have repeat this because I can’t believe that the following is something published by an Ivy Leage affiliate.
“…it makes no more sense to ask of a pedophile whether he is gay or straight than to ask of a man caught in coito with a dog whether the beast is male or female”
WHAT???
OK…ask a person…gay or straight? Direct Object and noun…the pedophile. This is the subject of the sentence. A person.
Ok, next…a man (subject 1 caught WITH a DOG (subject 2) in coito…and he proposes that the above compares asking not the man in coito, but the subject of the coito what said subject’s gender happens to be?
The logic is not in place here.
So let’s get this straight (no pun intended)
pedophile = subject of the sentence, gay or straight
versus
man in coito with dog
ask the dog which gender it is
I have to say that the more logical connection would be to ask the man if he is mentally ill or has he always had a disordered attraction to dogs?
The writer of this article further presents this at the end:
“Josef Ratzinger and his comrades have passed judgment upon all of us who reject his nihilistic resentment of modernity, including the countless decent Catholic priests, of whom scores are gay, who resist the pope’s centralism. Our choice, then, is between pluralism in its timorous and unapologetic forms; between placating the instantly offended faithful and pursuing justice for those whose faith has shattered; between coddling perpetrators and defending their victims. It’s high time to pass judgment on Ratzinger”
Passed judgment over “all of us”…I guess this refers to the author’s acknowledgment of his rejection of objective truth.
Apparently the nihilistic resentment of modernity is something to be resented. Personally, I applaud it…I hope that the world can be a better place instead of our current “modern” one. Modern is further defined by theis person who rejects the Pontiff’s acceptance of the Truth and his “unapologetic” acceptance of Truth.
I love how he portrays “decent Cathoic priests” as being gay, yet it is gay priests who were at the crux of the controversy he so condemns…funny how he himself is defending the rapists he already damned. Even further…what I find really hilarious is that he is trying to hard to “pass judgment” on “Ratzinger”, when he is the one who will face judgment and he will have nothign to sputter but trite liberal propaganda with no foundation.
I hope his trip down to Hell doesn’t make him sick to his stomach. It would be a very sad occasion indeed if he found himself amid the flames of eternal damnation without a starched white shirt inside of which to preach his empty platform.
I say not to take this too seriously. If it was sent to you by someone you respect, point them towards the Catechism…if it was sent to you by a liberal…just laugh at them and go back to what you were doing . Nothing ticks them off more than to be disregarded in their “enlightenment”.
He contradicts himself so much it’s actually ridiculous. Let me provide an example:
“The idea is that homosexuality is an involuntary condition whose sufferers cannot help but violate innocents entrusted to their care. This logic is incoherent as well as bigoted; it makes no more sense to ask of a pedophile whether he is gay or straight than to ask of a man caught in coito with a dog whether the beast is male or female”
OK, let’s break this down. First he complains that the Pope advances the idea that homosexuality is an involuntary conditions.
HELLO!? Isn’t that EXACTLY what the bleeding-heart hellbound liberals have been trying to beat into we the “intolerant” for years and, that very same idea is the same that they have complained that we argued against??? HELLO??? Is there an echo in his head or is it just me?
Then he complains about incoherent logic. ??? Again, that echo resounds in such an incoherent way. I find that ironic, given his words.
I have repeat this because I can’t believe that the following is something published by an Ivy Leage affiliate.
“…it makes no more sense to ask of a pedophile whether he is gay or straight than to ask of a man caught in coito with a dog whether the beast is male or female”
WHAT???
OK…ask a person…gay or straight? Direct Object and noun…the pedophile. This is the subject of the sentence. A person.
Ok, next…a man (subject 1 caught WITH a DOG (subject 2) in coito…and he proposes that the above compares asking not the man in coito, but the subject of the coito what said subject’s gender happens to be?
The logic is not in place here.
So let’s get this straight (no pun intended)
pedophile = subject of the sentence, gay or straight
versus
man in coito with dog
ask the dog which gender it is
I have to say that the more logical connection would be to ask the man if he is mentally ill or has he always had a disordered attraction to dogs?
The writer of this article further presents this at the end:
“Josef Ratzinger and his comrades have passed judgment upon all of us who reject his nihilistic resentment of modernity, including the countless decent Catholic priests, of whom scores are gay, who resist the pope’s centralism. Our choice, then, is between pluralism in its timorous and unapologetic forms; between placating the instantly offended faithful and pursuing justice for those whose faith has shattered; between coddling perpetrators and defending their victims. It’s high time to pass judgment on Ratzinger”
Passed judgment over “all of us”…I guess this refers to the author’s acknowledgment of his rejection of objective truth.
Apparently the nihilistic resentment of modernity is something to be resented. Personally, I applaud it…I hope that the world can be a better place instead of our current “modern” one. Modern is further defined by theis person who rejects the Pontiff’s acceptance of the Truth and his “unapologetic” acceptance of Truth.
I love how he portrays “decent Cathoic priests” as being gay, yet it is gay priests who were at the crux of the controversy he so condemns…funny how he himself is defending the rapists he already damned. Even further…what I find really hilarious is that he is trying to hard to “pass judgment” on “Ratzinger”, when he is the one who will face judgment and he will have nothign to sputter but trite liberal propaganda with no foundation.
I hope his trip down to Hell doesn’t make him sick to his stomach. It would be a very sad occasion indeed if he found himself amid the flames of eternal damnation without a starched white shirt inside of which to preach his empty platform.
I say not to take this too seriously. If it was sent to you by someone you respect, point them towards the Catechism…if it was sent to you by a liberal…just laugh at them and go back to what you were doing . Nothing ticks them off more than to be disregarded in their “enlightenment”.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Thanks for the reply. It was sent by a faithful Catholic who was looking for some ideas on how to write a letter to the editor in response
. I was thinking of writing myself.The part about the involuntary nature was classic. I didn’t even notice it when I first read it.
J
JCPhoenix
Guest
Now that puts perspective to your question… I have to say I was wondergin at your post given your post-count of over 3k! 
I don’t think you can get to 3k without being somewhat knowledgable in your faith or quick responses!
Anyway, my observation, other than that given in my previous post, is that this is a trite attempt of a hellbound-for-politics liberal to encase his ignorance and anticatholicism within a shroud of propaganda, rehtoric, big words and complex sentences to belie his inability to understand context or logic.
Logic is the thing to attack here, however. He says outright he is neither gay (I take that to mean, in all charity, that he is depressed), nor is he Catholic (this also likely means he has not found God, therefore he is, again, depressed). But I digress and fall short therby in my own capacity to construct legitimate sentences.
Anyway, attack the logic or lack thereof. Point out the truths of Catholicism and the statistics behind the priestly abuse…that most were “gay”, so it does’t make much sense to ask the victims if they are dogs or cats and why the rapist was attracted to them. It has nothing to do with the price of litigation against Yale authorities.
His beef is not with the Pope…it is with legitimacy, it is with morality and point out that he has undermined the ajenda of the homosexual community by arguing that they are not helpless against their condition.
Point out the fact that he has discredited himself and in so doing so has also managed to alienate thousands of registered voters who will no longer pay him any respect when he tries to run for office.
He compares politics to the world of the spiritual. The Catholic Church is not a polity…it is a bridge to Heaven and the authority of the Church does not lie with the Pope,but rather, with Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father as the ulitmate authority. It is kingdom not of this planet and therefore to argue politics against God’s own organization is death.
Sure, Vatican City is a political authority…but that is the physical, earthly city. That is to be seperated from morality, which differs from current custom, which regales tales of the sordid.
I’m sure you can take it from here. Obviously some of my opinion is tongue in cheek, but you get the idea just the same.
I can’t believe some of these liberals are still breathing. How do they live even as they choke to death on their own unholy rhetoric?
I don’t think you can get to 3k without being somewhat knowledgable in your faith or quick responses!
Anyway, my observation, other than that given in my previous post, is that this is a trite attempt of a hellbound-for-politics liberal to encase his ignorance and anticatholicism within a shroud of propaganda, rehtoric, big words and complex sentences to belie his inability to understand context or logic.
Logic is the thing to attack here, however. He says outright he is neither gay (I take that to mean, in all charity, that he is depressed), nor is he Catholic (this also likely means he has not found God, therefore he is, again, depressed). But I digress and fall short therby in my own capacity to construct legitimate sentences.
Anyway, attack the logic or lack thereof. Point out the truths of Catholicism and the statistics behind the priestly abuse…that most were “gay”, so it does’t make much sense to ask the victims if they are dogs or cats and why the rapist was attracted to them. It has nothing to do with the price of litigation against Yale authorities.
His beef is not with the Pope…it is with legitimacy, it is with morality and point out that he has undermined the ajenda of the homosexual community by arguing that they are not helpless against their condition.
Point out the fact that he has discredited himself and in so doing so has also managed to alienate thousands of registered voters who will no longer pay him any respect when he tries to run for office.
He compares politics to the world of the spiritual. The Catholic Church is not a polity…it is a bridge to Heaven and the authority of the Church does not lie with the Pope,but rather, with Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father as the ulitmate authority. It is kingdom not of this planet and therefore to argue politics against God’s own organization is death.
Sure, Vatican City is a political authority…but that is the physical, earthly city. That is to be seperated from morality, which differs from current custom, which regales tales of the sordid.
I’m sure you can take it from here. Obviously some of my opinion is tongue in cheek, but you get the idea just the same.
I can’t believe some of these liberals are still breathing. How do they live even as they choke to death on their own unholy rhetoric?
- Status