Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Group Denigrating Catholics Invited by LA Dodgers to "Pride Night"


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Are you under the delusion that the lgbt community has a positive view of Islam and what they are doing to our brothers and sisters?

I am under no such delusion. How they are treated in the Middle East is awful. My point is they don't mock Islam because they are afraid of serious consequences both for themselves and their community in those countries. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They never intended to be family friendly.

Hi The Nehor,

Do you think the SPI should stop or continue to do the actions that Catholics think are blasphemous? The parodies of the crucifixion, of stations of the cross, of the habits/vestments of those in religious orders, etc.

Thanks,

Jesse

 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hi The Nehor,

Do you think the SPI should stop or continue to do the actions that Catholics think are blasphemous? The parodies of the crucifixion, of stations of the cross, of the habits/vestments of those in religious orders, etc.

Thanks,

Jesse

 

Yes, I know - you didn't ask me. But I'll answer anyway. : ) Of course they should cease and desist. There is nothing efficacious about mockery of this sort - nothing. Though it is certainly within their rights to do so, you won't hear me excusing it with some claptrap about "Oh, they're only acting out the trauma they experienced from the Catholic faith" or some such.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, blackstrap said:

I am under no such delusion. How they are treated in the Middle East is awful. My point is they don't mock Islam because they are afraid of serious consequences both for themselves and their community in those countries. 

Yeah. What is your point? That Christianity deserves praise for being less violent and repressive? I am not convinced that Christianity has a cleaner historical record on this point compared to Islam. Most lgbt advancement has come slowly and almost entirely due to classically liberal governments and is not really due to Christianity. Christianity is still mostly the enemy of the lgbt community. Those who want to shove us into reeducation camps are almost entirely Christians. Those who want to criminalize homosexual behavior are almost entirely Christian. Christians just don’t have a government backing up their homophobia like many Islamic nations do. Many Christians wish they did.

Or is it that you wish lgbt people in Islamic nations would satirize Islam and end up in prison?

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Yes, I know - you didn't ask me. But I'll answer anyway. : ) Of course they should cease and desist. There is nothing efficacious about mockery of this sort - nothing. Though it is certainly within their rights to do so, you won't hear me excusing it with some claptrap about "Oh, they're only acting out the trauma they experienced from the Catholic faith" or some such.

I think for many it is their way of dealing with the pain that religion has done to them.  When you grow up with a religion and believe in that religion and enjoy that community, being ostracized by that community and your family, Church and my family, I can certainly understand how deeply that hurts.  It is like everyone who you thought loved you and cared for you, becomes the ones with the pitchforks pushing you away from everything that you thought was important and trusted.  While it might be wrong, but it gives them back the power to hurt those that have hurt them so deeply.  Honestly, I understand that.  I think that Christ can also understand that and is probably willing to take on that burden for them.  If the Catholic Church and other religions find that kind of behavior disrespectful, perhaps they should ponder more on what caused that disrespect.  

Link to comment
19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I think it is.

"They can be upset about anything they like, it's not either/or. But to me 1900 minors abused in only one state seems like something far more worthy of anger. "

You are appealing to worse problems.  You are making a "not as bad as" assertion.

Nope, that doesn't fit with the description of the fallacy you quoted. I shouldn't have responded to you, I don't see your posts as adding anything productive, just arguing for the sake of argument. 

 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  You are faulting Catholics for not ignoring SPI.

Nope, never said that. This is misleading. 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

You said that "1900 minors abused in only one state seems like something far more worthy of anger."

Thanks,

-Smac

It is far more worthy of anger. Anyone with a good moral compass can see that. That doesn't imply, "ignore the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence." 

I'm going to invite you to stop responding to me. I'm not interested sophistry or arguing for the sake of arguing. I'll also not respond to you. If you do respond to me again, I'll put you on ignore. I don't know who could possibly have enough time in the day to play these games. 

Edited by Eschaton
Link to comment
17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hi The Nehor,

Do you think the SPI should stop or continue to do the actions that Catholics think are blasphemous? The parodies of the crucifixion, of stations of the cross, of the habits/vestments of those in religious orders, etc.

Thanks,

Jesse

 

Not directed at me, but I think it's very counterproductive. 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Nope, that doesn't fit with the description of the fallacy you quoted. I shouldn't have responded to you, I don't see your posts as adding anything productive, just arguing for the sake of argument. 

Nope, never said that. This is misleading. 

That is what the  "appeal to worse problems" / "not as bad as" fallacy is supposed to do.  You are responding to criticism of SPI by pointing to something "worse" than what they are doing.  As a distraction.  It's a fallacy.  And it doesn't work.

25 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

It is far more worthy of anger.

Which is why what you are saying is an example of the "appeal to worse problems" / "not as bad as" fallacy.

There is not contextual or narrative nexus between SPI and the sexual abuse issue you raise.  You only raise the latter because it is "worse" than the former.  I agree that it's worse.  But your invocation of it here is fallacious.

25 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Anyone with a good moral compass can see that. That doesn't imply, "ignore the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence." 

You said that "1900 minors abused in only one state seems like something far more worthy of anger."

You seek to distract from SPI by pointing to a "worse" issue.  That's a logical fallacy.

25 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

I'm going to invite you to stop responding to me.

You have no obligation to respond to what I write, but I have no obligation to acquiesce to your invitation.

25 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

I'm not interested sophistry or arguing for the sake of arguing.

I think your argument is fallacious.  

25 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

I'll also not respond to you.

As you like.  

25 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

If you do respond to me again, I'll put you on ignore.

Again, as you like.  But you will not have silenced me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

Ah, the fun issue we see, when two parties are engaged in civil respectful public dialogue aimed at discovering and propagating the truth, and one party closes the conversation by blocking the other.  

I mean, I'll unfollow folks, and there are of course places online (and in real life) I simply won't go.   I have occasionally blocked folks (not on this forum) for spamming things of little value, acting like jerks, wishing violence on me or mine, cyberbullying, and the like. 

But when I find someone willing to speak civilly and respectfully in public with me about important issues, I've never threatened to block, or actually blocked anyone.   I'll duck out of conversations, "go dark", just conclude my participation, stop visiting threads, offer to argue in private messages, occasionally.  But blocking someone who is being civil and respectful?  And doing it publicly?  

 

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Eschaton said:

The Catholic Church as an institution is responsible for far more abuse than what happened in Illinois. Unlike the Catholic Church, the actions of the Sisters don't actually directly affect anyone. They have no victims, no body count. I personally don't appreciate performative blasphemy, but it's less blasphemous to mock religious icons than it is for churches to abuse children and cover for their abusers. 

Classic "not as bad as" fallacy, this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 5/24/2023 at 8:04 AM, Eschaton said:

If I were Catholic I'd be far more upset about this than a drag group cosplaying as Catholic nuns:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/23/us/illinois-catholic-church-sex-abuse.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

This strikes me as a far deeper blasphemy than the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence could ever achieve. 

Classic "not as bad as."

SPI's behavior is "not as bad as" sexual abuse of children.

Agreed.  But irrelevant.  And fallacious.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

The thing I’d like to know is what is the nature of the coercive pressure being applied behind the scenes that could cause the management of a iconic professional baseball team to reverse a perfectly common sense, family friendly decision and allow a demonic and obscenely blasphemous group of play actors to receive honor and recognition at an event where hundreds of kids are going to be present? This society is now ripening in iniquity so precipitously that the old adage, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” has become passé because it’s gotten to the point where the few putatively good people who are left are now in the business of openly promoting evil. The fact that recognition for this grotesquely obscene group is even open for debate on an LDS discussion board is further evidence of just how far we have fallen. It’s no wonder that the judgements of God, that are going to be poured out upon the wicked without measure, are going to begin on the house of God.

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

9 If any man have an ear, let him hear. (Revelation 13)

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The thing I’d like to know is what is the nature of the coercive pressure being applied behind the scenes that could cause the management of a iconic professional baseball team to reverse a perfectly common sense, family friendly decision and allow a demonic and obscenely blasphemous group of play actors to receive honor and recognition at an event where hundreds of kids are going to be present? This society is now ripening in iniquity so precipitously that the old adage, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” has become passé because it’s gotten to the point where the few putatively good people who are left are now in the business of openly promoting evil. The fact that recognition for this grotesquely obscene group is even open for debate on an LDS discussion board is further evidence of just how far we have fallen. It’s no wonder that the judgements of God that are going to be poured out upon the wicked without measure are going to begin on the house of God.

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

9 If any man have an ear, let him hear. (Revelation 13)

Coercive pressure? They decided to invite a group for a minor award. There was a stink by a few people. They reversed the decision. Those supporting the group pushed back. The decision was reversed again.

Clearly this is demonic blackmail or something. Satan himself has spend centuries paving the way for *checks notes* a couple of irreverent cosplayers to make some bawdy jokes that mock religion.

Bring on the fire. I’ll see you in hell when we are done being consumed.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Classic "not as bad as."

SPI's behavior is "not as bad as" sexual abuse of children.

Agreed.  But irrelevant.  And fallacious.

Thanks,

-Smac

I asked you not to reply to me anymore. I don't have time for sophistry or pointless bickering. You clearly don't understand the fallacy you're attempting to use as a cudgel. Muted. 

Edited by Eschaton
Link to comment
1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Ah, the fun issue we see, when two parties are engaged in civil respectful public dialogue aimed at discovering and propagating the truth, and one party closes the conversation by blocking the other.  

I mean, I'll unfollow folks, and there are of course places online (and in real life) I simply won't go.   I have occasionally blocked folks (not on this forum) for spamming things of little value, acting like jerks, wishing violence on me or mine, cyberbullying, and the like. 

But when I find someone willing to speak civilly and respectfully in public with me about important issues, I've never threatened to block, or actually blocked anyone.   I'll duck out of conversations, "go dark", just conclude my participation, stop visiting threads, offer to argue in private messages, occasionally.  But blocking someone who is being civil and respectful?  And doing it publicly?  

 

The behavior I've observed is relentless, high word count, substance-free gish gallop arguing for the point of arguing and sophistry. Some of us have day jobs. I don't have time for people who argue in bad faith. 

Edited by Eschaton
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

I asked you not to reply to me anymore.

Yes.  And I was disinclined to acquiesce to your request.

You are free to not respond to my posts, but it is not for you to dictate to me what I can and cannot say.

7 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

I don't have time for sophistry or pointless bickering.

I think your use of fallacious reasoning merits attention and response.

7 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

You clearly don't understand the fallacy you're attempting to use as a cudgel.

I'm pretty sure I have a grasp of the concept.

And I'm pretty sure that you have used the fallacy several times in this thread.

7 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Muted. 

As you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

The behavior I've observed is relentless, high word count, substance-free gish gallop arguing for the point of arguing and sophistry. Some of us have day jobs. I don't have time for people who argue in bad faith. 

Ouch. You know, you could simply stop responding without the need to continuously explain why you plan on not responding. Just sayin'... ; )

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Ouch. You know, you could simply stop responding without the need to continuously explain why you plan on not responding. Just sayin'... ; )

They were clearly talking about me, but without mentioning me specifically for some reason. Just explaining myself.  I'm not really an insider here and I don't plan to comment more than sporadically, when I have time. 

Link to comment
On 5/23/2023 at 3:57 PM, Amulek said:

I find this whole thread shocking and somewhat disappointing. People are really still paying money to attend professional baseball games?

Seriously!?! How is that still a thing? Baseball has got to be one of the few sports that's even more boring to watch than soccer. ;)

 

Two minutes of action squeezed into two+ hours.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Not directed at me, but I think it's very counterproductive. 

Counterproductive to what end? Catholic-LGBTQ relations? What will the LGBTQ community do without all that support from conservative Christianity they never had?

Edited by Smiley McGee
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Counterproductive to what end? Catholic-LGBTQ relations? What will the LGBTQ community do without all that support from conservative Christianity they never had?

This.

When an organization has labeled your whole community as damned and the community mocks the organization that does that what is being lost? What respect and dialogue is now gone? Is the community slightly more damned?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Eschaton said:

The behavior I've observed is relentless, high word count, substance-free gish gallop arguing for the point of arguing and sophistry. Some of us have day jobs. I don't have time for people who argue in bad faith. 

Then just quietly put the person on ignore rather than make a drama of it if that is the actual issue.  Publicizing you are going to ignore them and spending several posts on the topic looks like something besides not having time for them

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Not directed at me, but I think it's very counterproductive. 

 

53 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Counterproductive to what end? Catholic-LGBTQ relations? What will the LGBTQ community do without all that support from conservative Christianity they never had?

Yes this exactly. If their goal is to mend ties with conservative Christianity, then yes it’s counter productive. But I suspect it’s done to take ownership over and heal from a hateful and damaging ideology in their (and mine as well I suppose) view. As well as provide a safe place to land for those who continue to be marginalized. 
 

I think it’s similar to certain exmormon on TikTok wearing temple clothes and mocking temple ceremonies. I don’t do that or support it, but I didn’t experience the drama they describe either. The church and its rituals were a huge part of their life and if mocking painful things helps them heal more power to them. 
 

That said, it’s obviously going to trigger a strong reaction from people who view the mocked symbols as sacred (a reaction those people are entitled to). So each individual has to choose their own path I guess.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...