tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post1071388332557190455..comments2024-03-28T03:54:21.932-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: Kicking SCChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-69146122350673139572008-06-27T20:02:00.000-04:002008-06-27T20:02:00.000-04:00There is no maintaining an actual discussion hereT...<I>There is no maintaining an actual discussion here</I><BR/>Two comments ago, I spoke of you being "incapable of maintaining an actual discussion". Now you say "there is no maintaining an actual discussion"? Come on. I've seen chat bots do a better job of "conversing". You're not an old model chat bot, are you?<BR/><BR/><I>...this place is like a left-leaning SDA,</I><BR/>Yes, mentioning a place that gets skewered here lately. Very good, context sensitive, you are at least a 1998 vintage bot.<BR/><BR/><I>where the flying monkeys swoop in for attack the moment you disagree with the collective opinion.</I><BR/>But as usual, the logical fallacy. You are not attacked for disagreeing with the "collective opinion". You are attacked for attacking. Plain and simple. And if you look carefully, it is not actually you that is being attacked, it is your views and especially the way you present them. <BR/><BR/>Attack bots are at least 2000 vintage, with the Rovization of US political discourse at the time.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Appeals to authority, ad hominem, wilful obtuseness. All have been seen here many times and while amusing, they do not cut it as discussion.liberal supporterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129945625510633921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-88675620158736439562008-06-27T18:39:00.000-04:002008-06-27T18:39:00.000-04:00Actual discussion? With you? Of course not, s. And...Actual discussion? With you? Of course not, s. And it's only because we're all smart enough to know that a pompous, addle-pated, limp witted, butt sniffing, reality impaired, assmonkey troll like you isn't interested in 'discussion'. What you <I>are</I> interested is our complete agreement with your POV and supplication to your oh-so-smarmy self-superiority.<BR/><BR/>Ain't gonna happen. <BR/><BR/>If you were looking for bobbleheads, they're on aisle 11.Frank Frinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05727863730658037306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-50569325072868746502008-06-27T17:51:00.000-04:002008-06-27T17:51:00.000-04:00There is no maintaining an actual discussion here....There is no maintaining an actual discussion here...this place is like a left-leaning SDA, where the flying monkeys swoop in for attack the moment you disagree with the collective opinion.shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16573537361501982180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-3465583470632096212008-06-27T12:10:00.000-04:002008-06-27T12:10:00.000-04:00I think you'll have to rename it "Good Vancouver",...I think you'll have to rename it "Good Vancouver", it would seem to have lost its former greatness if "s" is there.<BR/><BR/>Actually, naah. I'm sure the streets of Vancouver get dogs pooping on them from time to time, doesn't make the city less great...liberal supporterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129945625510633921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-30436062510153908962008-06-27T12:01:00.000-04:002008-06-27T12:01:00.000-04:00Niether Twatrick nor Spitz. JJ has an ISP. It's in...Niether Twatrick nor Spitz. JJ has an ISP. It's in Greater Vancouver.Frank Frinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05727863730658037306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-24292848424611250962008-06-27T11:01:00.000-04:002008-06-27T11:01:00.000-04:00I only got suspicious with this:Illogical statemen...I only got suspicious with this:<BR/><I>Illogical statements comparing religion with prostitution</I> when in fact it was a clear and logical rebuttal to "s"'s appeal to authority based on the age of the church. Completely ignoring that, and simply going with "you compared religion with prostitutes" is classic PR "logic". The "you need a shrink" routine is standard fright wing stuff, not particularly indicative of PR though.<BR/><BR/>I must admit it was a desperate desire on my part that it <I>was</I> PR, and that we don't now have someone else as fantastically incapable of maintaining an actual discussion. <BR/><BR/>It's the high functioning loonies that are always the most infuriating because one will spend more time trying to engage them, then they come back with "s" type drivel.liberal supporterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129945625510633921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-36634193716318616122008-06-27T10:31:00.000-04:002008-06-27T10:31:00.000-04:00No, I don't think it's a Twatsy sock puppet. More ...No, I don't think it's a Twatsy sock puppet. More likely that 's' is the even-too-nutty-for-the-nutbars Rev. Don Spitz.Frank Frinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05727863730658037306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-6875777641024017142008-06-27T10:11:00.000-04:002008-06-27T10:11:00.000-04:00P.S. If anyone requires "professional help", it's ...<B>P.S.</B> If anyone requires "professional help", it's not my esteemed colleague. It's someone who refuses to see that the Church and, by extension, organized religion as a whole has some serious issues. And, more importantly, that intelligent people question these issues and feel that they should be dealt with ... <I><B>now</B></I>.<BR/><BR/>Now be a dear and run along ... the grown-ups are talking.LuLuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412312541969320536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-12976856175765409162008-06-27T10:07:00.000-04:002008-06-27T10:07:00.000-04:00That's not very nice, lulu.The proper greeting wou...That's not very nice, lulu.<BR/><BR/>The proper greeting would be:<BR/><BR/>Hi Patrick, nice sock puppet!liberal supporterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129945625510633921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-47761751678048890342008-06-27T10:03:00.000-04:002008-06-27T10:03:00.000-04:00Dear "S":Fuck off twice, you passive-agressive, de...Dear "S":<BR/><BR/>Fuck off twice, you passive-agressive, delusional, mouthbreathing, goalpost-shifting lackwit.<BR/><BR/>Yours in endless amusement,<BR/>LuLuLuLuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412312541969320536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-5581564428025500972008-06-27T07:50:00.000-04:002008-06-27T07:50:00.000-04:00PSA - asssssss doesn't get it. Maybe you should t...PSA - asssssss doesn't get it. Maybe you should try typing slower, or using only monosyllabic words and grunts.JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09458917081261136618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-34272891670729513902008-06-26T23:22:00.000-04:002008-06-26T23:22:00.000-04:00Thanks for demonstrating how your mind works, monk...Thanks for demonstrating how your mind works, monkey boy. Illogical statements comparing religion with prostitution and schizophrenic opinions (calling the church a “creepy deviant circus,” followed by “most folks, regardless of religion or sect or political stripe, are pretty decent folks. That includes the majority of the clergy”) only prove how fucked up you are. Go get some professional help.shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16573537361501982180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-71215535176293373512008-06-26T11:50:00.000-04:002008-06-26T11:50:00.000-04:00Concerning the Roman Catholic Church, with its vap...Concerning the Roman Catholic Church, with its vapid notion of <I>infallibility</I> and <I>irreformability</I>, it is outstandingly interesting to note that 'infallibility' was originally condemned in a papal bull (Qui quorundam) by John XXII in AD 1324. In fact, John XXII was so incensed at the notion of papal infallibility that he stated it is a "work of the devil, the father of all lies".<BR/><BR/>The notion of infallibility was first introduced by a Franciscan priest by the name of Peter Olivi, who was repeatedly accused of heresy. Before John XXII, Pope Nicholas III favoured the Franciscans so he was all for passing Olivi's idea. But he died before it could take hold. John XXII hated the Franciscans, and hated the notion of infallibility because it would've made a mockery of his oppulent lifestyle; he enjoyed luxury ""by duping the poor, by selling livings, indulgences and dispensations" (De Rosa, op. cit., p. 180).<BR/><BR/>Papal infallibility was never considered prior to the 13th/14th centuries, and was largely ignored until the 19th century when it became expedient to make a decision if the Roman Catholic Church wanted to keep some of its religious clout. That means that everything prior to John XXII condemnation of papal infallibility is not necessarily binding on Catholics, and that everything else pronounced as 'binding' after John XXII is effectively a contradition. Papal infallibility is a sham!<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I know what I wrote isn't exactly on target with PSA's post, however, I thought it might be interesting to note that whatever 'official' declarations the Roman Catholic Church wants to make on a subject cannot ever be binding on anyone, including their own clergy, because they've already sawed off the branch they were sitting on: infallibility and irreformability of papal decisions.<BR/><BR/>Thanks. You've been a wonderful audience. I play fortnightly at 1 a.m. on the kazoo.<BR/><BR/>ChristopherKane Augustushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06365182037573315451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-73151101321618155752008-06-26T11:44:00.000-04:002008-06-26T11:44:00.000-04:00And 2000 years isn't all that long as far as relig...And 2000 years isn't all that long as far as religions go. If length of service made you right then we should all become Hindus.toujoursdanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08106158181662408311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-13104964476971929922008-06-26T11:33:00.000-04:002008-06-26T11:33:00.000-04:00In dialoguing with the TBCs (True Blue Catholics) ...In dialoguing with the TBCs (True Blue Catholics) you find that they will repeat the mantra that the church has always been consistent in doctrine with great sincerity. When you produce statements by Bishops, Cardinals and Popes that are out of sync with doctrines and statements made today, the reply is that they weren't made "infallibly". So then when you ask that given the church hasn't made "infallible" pronouncements on women clergy, gay marriage, receiving communion in other denominations, Mary as co-redemptrix, etc., that these are still open to debate and disagreement, the answer is "Of course not". <BR/><BR/>Methinks the whole "infallibility" clause is just a cover - or a way of hedging its bets. The RCC has actually made many de-facto infallible statements that were contradicted later. It hasn't been consistent on matters of theology or morals. But a TBC is in denial of this.toujoursdanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08106158181662408311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-27947457700535085472008-06-26T11:09:00.000-04:002008-06-26T11:09:00.000-04:00This is one of the reasons I click on the "CC" tab...This is one of the reasons I click on the "CC" tab of my bookmarks toolbar several times a day...JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09458917081261136618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-27212435452872585672008-06-26T10:28:00.000-04:002008-06-26T10:28:00.000-04:00*sigh*My hero ...<I>*sigh*</I><BR/><BR/>My hero ...LuLuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412312541969320536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-20875288041180554872008-06-26T09:48:00.000-04:002008-06-26T09:48:00.000-04:00Part of the reason I am a lapsed Catholic is that ...Part of the reason I am a lapsed Catholic is that unlike most other Catholics, I've actually studied the doctrine and the history of the Church. <I>Consistent</I> is not the word I would use to describe Catholic doctrine over the last 2000 years. <BR/><BR/>Most of the doctrines the Church adheres to today, especially concerning abortion, the Immaculate Conception (and most Catholics are just as ignorant of its true meaning as those outside the faith) and papal infallibility, are less than 200 years old. So to say the Church is <I>consistent</I> about anything other than its inherent disgust with human sexuality as a whole and its innate sense of self-preservation is <A HREF="http://www.whatwemaybe.org/txt/txt0001/Glad.John.2006.Catholicism%20and%20Eugenics%20in%20the%20Weimar%20Republic%20and%20in%20the%20Third%20Reich.htm" REL="nofollow">a bit misleading</A>, I think.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12205684816801345851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-34473471646489550672008-06-26T09:30:00.000-04:002008-06-26T09:30:00.000-04:00(er, rather than hypocrisy - which is rife whichev...(er, rather than hypocrisy - which is rife whichever way you look at it - I meant to say "dislike of women").Reneehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05660232353701098976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-69992490095946006172008-06-26T09:23:00.000-04:002008-06-26T09:23:00.000-04:00The hypocrisy is revealed even when you consider w...The hypocrisy is revealed even when you consider why they're against the vaccine. Why on earth couldn't a woman get married responsibly at 18 and STILL get HPV from her husband? Would the Church be against vaccinating all girls for that event? Yeesh.Reneehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05660232353701098976noreply@blogger.com