(March 10, 2016 at 10:21 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Not sure how to say this politely -fuck you comes to mind- but I have no authority to allow or disallow anyone from saying anything they like.  What I said I said because I wanted to and have no regrets about any of it.  But you too must deal with my freedom of speech and no I don't think I will concede what you ask.  On second thought, "fuck you" cuts to the chase better.

And I almost thought you were above that.

(March 10, 2016 at 10:44 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Her statements were supportive of a god who allows rape - now if you were to say that's OK for another human to do, then what, honestly, would it make you? I was just trying to explain that to her, as I think was the case with LFC.

All I'm asking of those who love CL is to keep it fair for everyone else here.

You insensitive jerk. You actually think you are entitled to courtesy when you yourself have none. The temerity of it.

What your words make you is a jerk. Jerks who've demonstrated their mettle are entitled to no respect nor courtesy.

(March 10, 2016 at 6:11 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: You can attack a person aggressively for holding a viewpoint, but you're not likely to change their mind doing so. The viewpoint is the actual problem, why not focus on that?

As Ma Thump used to say, "You get more flies with honey than vinegar."

(March 10, 2016 at 7:56 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: So we have a negative attitude toward her beliefs, well that's really too bad - she should either deal with that, or she doesn't belong here. She's a fun person when her beliefs don't get in the way, but when you're a theist and you're here, you should expect to feel the heat. What you and the other defenders (who regard as a few steps beneath your intelligence after the past few days) have accomplished is the creation of a sort of goddess who nobody can touch, no matter what she says.

I think everyone who ain't an asshole belongs here, and I don't care what they believe or even whether they're convincable. I don't have to agree with someone in order to like them, and I think that very thought ought to be disparaged.

How much poorer a forum is when groupthink takes hold!

(March 10, 2016 at 7:59 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 10, 2016 at 4:41 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I make change in the coin tendered. I prefer courteous discussion, but let's face it: I'm an asshole, at times....But I don't answer rudeness with courtesy; I don't reward behavior I don't like and won't take.

Oh, I know Thump.  I was just looking for an excuse to use the word "cuntmuffin" again.  I told you I was going to keep it up my sleeve for use at a later time!  [emoji39]

It is after all a beautifully hilarious word. All it lacks is a pat of butter and some blueberries on the side.

(March 10, 2016 at 8:48 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Personally, I'd like to see this thread die on the vine. I see little productive here being accomplished.

I think this thread needs titties:

I think it needs this.

I have spent 20 hrs reviewing this thread because I care about our forum, its' members, and that everyone feel they get just and equal treatment. I just wanted you guys to know I haven't given up, it's taking me some time, but I do seek reconciliation between the members who feel uneasy about this thread and the events surrounding it, especially Tibs.
Please bear with me, this is why I am not as active a mod as I could be--I'm very thorough and it's hard to do that when I'm constantly being meddled with health-wise!
Thank you and good night, again.

(March 10, 2016 at 10:44 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: I can't believe you don't know I gave no reason for you to believe that. I know it's because you like CL, and sympathize with her because she appears to be so genuinely nice. I don't know her outside of this forum, but still I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt too, so to speak (I really have no reason to doubt her).

My personal reasons for liking C_L aside, I believe an outside observer to this thread would conclude that the treatment C_L was subjected to was unfair and uncalled for.

Quote:What I'm appealing for is that this site should not let personal prejudices get in the way of fair and open discourse when there's a disagreement between members. Some people got very rude with CL in this thread, and that's unfortunate, but passions escalate when somebody makes a position and then hides behind her ignorance while still maintaining that position. Anyone else who said what she did would be suspected of feigning ignorance, which I believe is what set others off, although that's hard to really believe of CL.

What I'm appealing for is that when someone says something that makes you think they support rape, which would be an overwhelmingly unlikely opinion to hold (most people do not support rape), instead of repeatedly bringing it up to them, calling them a rape apologist, saying they support rape, etc. even when they haven't actually said they do, why not ask them to clarify their position, or heck, just politely ask "but doesn't holding views X and Y mean you support rape?"

What's honestly more likely, that a Catholic woman supports rape, or that she either didn't explain her point well enough, or people confused what she was saying and read way too much into it. Occam's razor springs to mind here.

Quote:I do understand the above, and I believe my point still stands.

Then quite frankly, you don't understand my point.

Quote:Although I once lost it on CL over her stand on abortion early on, I don't recall ever calling her nor you a "racist", "a horrible person", and certainly not a wannabe member of the SS. I've told a few people here to "fuck off" when they got aggressive with their own shit, but I simply could not say that to one with CL's sweet disposition.

What is it with people not being able to read properly in this thread...I never said that you called me a racist or a member of the SS. I was referring to something that happened a good few years ago now, to myself (not C_L). The only reason I brought it up was because it's a good parallel with what happened here.

Quote:Her statements were supportive of a god who allows rape - now if you were to say that's OK for another human to do, then what, honestly, would it make you? I was just trying to explain that to her, as I think was the case with LFC.

Being supportive of a God who allows rape does not necessarily make you a supporter of rape, and there's a big difference between that and having the position that "oh, rape is OK for humans to do".

The problem seems to be that you are treating God as just another human, when in the Catholic faith, and indeed in pretty much all faiths, God is not human. As I've stated earlier in the thread, the usual Christian doctrine is that God allows rape not because he supports it, or even agrees with it, but because to prevent it would to go against free will.

Quote:All I'm asking of those who love CL is to keep it fair for everyone else here.

I fail to see who we're not? I'm not saying you can't discuss stuff, but discussions go nowhere if you don't actually read what the other person writes, and ask them for clarifications before deciding that you know their own position better than them.

(March 10, 2016 at 4:12 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Irrational Wrote:True, three persons in one being, according to the Catholic faith, but we are made in the image of God as persons (in other words, like him).

So ok, if that's the case, using that reasoning about God, why not extend this to other entities as well? What is it about being human that makes a human being standing by and watching someone else harm a third person be morally wrong that they be held accountable for not stopping the offender if they had the power to do so?

If it's something to do with rationality or having a moral sense or whatever, then why should God be treated any different (since he has those as well)?

Human beings set rules for their pets and livestock that don't apply to them. It would be silly to make a rule about the dog not being on the bed that applies to you, too. Even if you consider your dog  a person; they're not your equal and don't get to hold you to the same standard to which you hold them.

Regardless, I'm of the view that human beings are held morally accountable for certain actions or inactions that I would never hold a non-human animal accountable for due to the lack of capacity on their part to "appreciate" the wrongness of such actions or inactions.

If a lion kills a human being, for example, I don't see it as murder even if the lion was not in danger of being attacked by him. But obviously, if a human being intentionally, and fairly consciously, kills another human being when they didn't have to, that would be (roughly speaking) murder. The difference lies in the awareness and mental capacity to appreciate the wrongness.

So going back to God, it is clear that Catholics believe God has a much more higher awareness of things, and is supposed to be the epitome of moral perfection. If that's the case, then it would be very reasonable to expect such a grand being to hold himself much more accountable for certain inactions than we limited beings should.

Using the argument of free will just means that despite his grand qualities, God gets to bear much less burden in terms of moral accountability than far less powerful beings. Why is it ok for God to respect the free will of someone to murder someone else, but it's not ok for a human being to respect the free will of another human being to murder his enemy? Being all-mighty means he should be able to not let this stuff happen in the first place.