52
   

Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

 
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 09:27 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I do not want the Church, or you, deciding what a woman must or must not do with her own body.


Neither do I. And neither should the 50 million blokes who have unloaded in a woman when abortion was required to correct the result of the indulgence. As a fact. You're defending a sordid backstop to male indulgence. And by having a backstop you encourage the indulgence. And we know it is sordid because of how it is hidden away and not much admitted to.

Quote:
.you have to tie almost everything on the planet to sex.


Sure. It is isn't it?

Quote:
And I certainly will never accept that advocacy for women's rights such as I present represents some kind of male chauvinism...while what you are doing is enlightened.


I don't expect you to. Nor anybody who marks his own homework as religiously as you do. Try going back to Square One rather than coming in when the damage has been done.

Quote:
That is not the same as saying it is useless or that it does nothing positive...nor that it does not provide a necessary refuge for some people.


That's another example of the MYOH. The implication being that you are a tough cookie and don't need any refuges which are for weak people eh? The RIC. So popular on A2K. The reverse invidious comparison. Weak people need the Church. You don't need the Church. Thus you are strong. QED. LOad of self-serving shite actually. So habitual you don't even know you're doing it.

I'm still waiting for a reason to attack the Church with so much emotion and determination that is not to do with sex. The leader of the pack, Prof. Dawkins, is on his third wife. And he's gone a bit quiet recently as well.

There was an example on our TV the other night. There was a discussion about a newspaper headline concerning a veteran female MP saying that easy divorce has been a disaster for women. The feminist in the discussion complacently opined that "of course the MP has an agenda" smirking conspiratorially. The implication being that the MP was up to something sinister.

And the sodding agenda was in the headline being discussed. Bald, short and frank. Nothing sinister in sight. And that was it. It was passed off as a satisfactory response. No need to argue that easy divorce is good for women. Just another smear suffices. No need to face up to the complete ******* catastrophe for women that easy divorce represents.

PS. If you found the Green Bay game exciting without having had a spread bet on them you are easily excited. It was turgid. The blown coverage for the Vikes TD near the end looked like it had been arranged to allow them a little respectability.

The Bengals game was a bit better.

reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 09:39 am
@spendius,
spendius what did you think about Jesus s reason for the season?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 09:41 am
@spendius,
Re:
Quote:
Quote:
Frank Apisa (Post 5219255)
Quote:
I do not want the Church, or you, deciding what a woman must or must not do with her own body.



Neither do I. And neither should the 50 million blokes who have unloaded in a woman when abortion was required to correct the result of the indulgence. As a fact. You're defending a sordid backstop to male indulgence. And by having a backstop you encourage the indulgence. And we know it is sordid because of how it is hidden away and not much admitted to.


Then advocate putting the guys to death if you want. But once pregnant...not you; not some government; not some Church should decide whether a woman can or cannot end that pregnancy should she decide to do either.

Deal with that...and stop the extraneous noise about what some men may or may not have done in the way of indulgence.

If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy occurring in her own body...she should be able to do so. Period.

Quote:
PS. If you found the Green Bay game exciting without having had a spread bet on them you are easily excited. It was turgid. The blown coverage for the Vikes TD near the end looked like it had been arranged to allow them a little respectability.

The Bengals game was a bit better.


I am impressed (very impressed) with what you wrote in this section.

I went to bed before the half time of the Green Bay game. I sometimes enjoy blowouts as much as I enjoy close games...especially when I have a bet on the winning team, which I did not in this case. I enjoyed the first half...and if you did not enjoy the job Aaron Rogers was doing, you must not be an American football fan despite these excellent remarks you offered.

The Bengals game was just fine...although I had the Bengals in my parlays. Been betting on the Texans all year, but got talked off them by a friend.

It happens.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 11:46 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:

Quote:

Give me an example of a sophistry rl.



That's to easy, it can be summed up in just one word. "spendius"


That's too easy rl. It is sophistry in its crudest form. Not only is it fallacious but it can only be aimed for its plausibility at the very lowest of intelligences. Which reveals something about you in case you don't know. And the company you keep. My statements are not only not fallacious but they are implausible and as sophistry is the rendering of fallacious arguments in a plausible form I fail the test on both counts.

How can my arguments be plausible when nobody accepts them? You must not know what sophistry is. You just use the word as an all purpose insult for when you are stumped because you're frightened of being stumped because it proves you're not as intelligent as you might have thought and that is a simple fact you are not ready to face up to yet. Maybe never will be. We can but try. On behalf of your companions I mean.

You are insulting A2K. As if the sort of discourse you are obviously addicted to will pass muster on a site catering for so many intelligent members as A2K does. Like you think you are talking to the feeble-minded.

Give me a reason why you expend so much emotional energy on attacking the Church which has nothing to do with sex and your personal needs and conveniences in regard to sex.

The vestments maybe. The incense. The display of dignity of human movement. (No small matter when there's so much undignified human movement). The music and what music it is. The architecture. You only need look at a good cathedral to see that there's an Apollo mission on the end of it. The paintings and statues. The receipts from tourism and from the millions of superstitious diddicos who voluntarily hand over their hard-earned money to help preserve the institution. The high-life styles of the dignitaries. Any of those reasons?

You can forget diddling little lads because the Church condemns it as much as anybody else. I think the Pope visited the US to sort the problem out. And you can forget the wars as well. Everybody does that to defend their mission and bringing peace to the earth is a mission worth fighting for unlike a mission to make fat-cat Americans a bit better off.

Even the jolly old Church of England, on announcing that it will allow homosexual bishops, after much debate lasting years, has insisted that any such bishops remain celibate. Obviously I laughed.

The nation has gone -- "Oh yeah!! Pull the other one squire!"

It's a higher level sophistry than you can manage though. Not by a lot mind you. It represents an admission that sexually active homosexuals remain prohibited and the simple fact that the C of E can't police them in their beds or on Clapham Common is where the plausibility falls down. I wasn't the only one who laughed. Which is understandable as it is so funny. Like you, they think they are addressing the kiddie-winks because they think they are themselves intelligent.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 11:56 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Give me a reason why you expend so much emotional energy on attacking the Church which has nothing to do with sex and your personal needs and conveniences in regard to sex.


Which church are you taking about spendius?

Quote:
Even the jolly old Church of England, on announcing that it will allow homosexual bishops, after much debate lasting years, has insisted that any such bishops remain celibate. Obviously I laughed.

The nation has gone -- "Oh yeah!! Pull the other one squire!"


I bet this was a happy day for you. Laughing
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 12:08 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
But once pregnant...not you; not some government; not some Church should decide whether a woman can or cannot end that pregnancy should she decide to do either.


The Church, nor me, decide nothing in that respect. We are allowed to think it disgraceful, sordid, immoral, demeaning to women and to femininity in general aren't we. If the blokes had to undergo the procedure there would be a very fast reduction in abortion.

It's a chap's gambit. Just like encouraging women to take poisons and insert objects into their pride and joy are as well. It's misogyny of the highest order. It has turned them into receptacles.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 12:10 pm
@spendius,
Pass the pharmaceuticals.
0 Replies
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 12:50 pm
@Frank Apisa,
@Frank, And Spendius...

I did not think that either game was interesting yesterday...even though the Texans game was not a blowout...

The 2 better games should be today...

I think Baltimore/Indy is a toss up...Anyway you break it down...And is going back and forth right now, Baltimore turning it over about to score...Then Indy turning it over, and they were about to score...though Balitmore just kicked a field goal...3-0

BTW Frank, in terms of betting...I would have taken the underdog in every game...Except Texans...So I would be 1-1 right now...

I figured the Packers would win, but not by 10.5...

And the Washington/Seattle game should be the best of this week...
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 12:57 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Spades where you been for the last 24 hours? You must have went and preached this morning?
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 01:08 pm
@reasoning logic,
I went out mate...Then came home and went to bed mate...was tired...

I did wake up and watch mass live from the Vatican with Pope Benedict XVI...this morning though...
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 01:12 pm
@Frank Apisa,
BTW Frank also...

I think that Seattle will win...tonight...

But it is crazy...in terms of betting, if I was to bet that game...I would take the 3 that Seattle is giving to Washington at home...

But I do think Seattle is going to win...

Really, I would have never touched that game at all in terms of betting...
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 01:20 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
I did wake up and watch mass live from the Vatican with Pope Benedict XVI...this morning though...


What did you think about the Pope's speech? I watched Jesus explain the reason for the season. Did you?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 01:49 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5219348)
Quote:
But once pregnant...not you; not some government; not some Church should decide whether a woman can or cannot end that pregnancy should she decide to do either.


The Church, nor me, decide nothing in that respect. We are allowed to think it disgraceful, sordid, immoral, demeaning to women and to femininity in general aren't we. If the blokes had to undergo the procedure there would be a very fast reduction in abortion.

It's a chap's gambit. Just like encouraging women to take poisons and insert objects into their pride and joy are as well. It's misogyny of the highest order. It has turned them into receptacles.


No it doesn't. And refusing to allow them to terminate a pregnancy occurring in their own body turns them into a pawn of the state.

In any case, you are essentially suggesting that women give up a basic right…in order to get men to act less primitively.

You will never get it, Spendius. Luckily for women, most men are not like you.

Every woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body…and you people lobbying to limit that right for all the silly reasons you think appropriate are going nowhere. This train has already left the station.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 02:49 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank wouldn't you be considered a wolf by the popes standards?

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 02:54 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Luckily for women,


We don't think it is luckily for women. We think it is unlucky for women to have been persuaded to do something horrible so that men get their conveniences attended to. So horrible that very few women speak of it happening to them and you prefer to talk about it in the abstract rather than face up to what occurs. And then claim you have women's interests at heart and we haven't. It isn't you in the clinic.

Your use of "luckily" is MYOH again. If it is actually lucky for women you get 10 out of 10 and if we mark your homework you get 0 out of 10.

Quote:
And refusing to allow them to terminate a pregnancy occurring in their own body turns them into a pawn of the state.


In what way? Women have the right to eat themselves up to 350 pounds but let 50,000,000 do it and you'll soon find out what the state has of necessity to do about it. So much for rights. We only concede the right of an anorexic woman to starve herself to death grudgingly and that is only because so few women can manage to walk past a fridge without having a nibble. Let 50,000,000 try that. Let 50,000,000 try having 12 kids each.

Hey--why don't you contact the pram industry. Women's right to have 12 kids have been infringed by a process which women do not understand. They only want an abortion for reasons they don't understand as well. Their bodies don't want an abortion. Bodies have rights as well. Bodies will only stand for so much theory.

Bodies don't argue and discuss. They feel. What a treat it would be to have a mother of 16 who had fought tooth and nail against all manner of pressure to have insisted upon having had one.

Fancy a so called man of the left building a case 0n individual rights and denigrating a State's rights.

We think abortion starves their souls. We don't quite see how it cannot do but we recognise that they are experts at pretending otherwise. To humour you. "I'm fine!!!" ****. Really emphatically and constantly asserted.

It's as bad as trimming the wings of a bird. The "rights" argument is really the last ditch isn't it.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 03:05 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
We think it is unlucky for women to have been persuaded to do something horrible so that men get their conveniences attended to.


What makes you so certain that this is a majority of the cases?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 03:06 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5219516)
Quote:
Luckily for women,


We don't think it is luckily for women. We think it is unlucky for women to have been persuaded to do something horrible so that men get their conveniences attended to. So horrible that very few women speak of it happening to them and you prefer to talk about it in the abstract rather than face up to what occurs. And then claim you have women's interests at heart and we haven't. It isn't you in the clinic.

Your use of "luckily" is MYOH again. If it is actually lucky for women you get 10 out of 10 and if we mark your homework you get 0 out of 10.


Please, Spendius, if you think women want to have their rights restricted so that people like you can feel good about yourself...you are dead wrong.

But you are stuck in this position...and you refuse to stop digging.

Funny in a way.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
And refusing to allow them to terminate a pregnancy occurring in their own body turns them into a pawn of the state.



In what way?


Explaining wouldn't do the job. You have your mind shut tight.

Fine. Enjoy the blindness.

Quote:
Fancy a so called man of the left building a case 0n individual rights and denigrating a State's rights.


Is there a "man of the left" in this discussion...or is this something you made up while playing with your keyboard.

C'mon, Spendius. Enough laughter for now. Let's get serious.

Quote:
We think abortion starves their souls. We don't quite see how it cannot do but we recognise that they are experts at pretending otherwise. To humour you. "I'm fine!!!" ****. Really emphatically and constantly asserted.

It's as bad as trimming the wings of a bird. The "rights" argument is really the last ditch isn't it.


Right, Spendius...you want to tell women what is good for their souls. You want to decide for them what they can and cannot do...because YOU are better able to decide what will please them.

Gimme a break. My stomach hurts.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 03:46 pm
@spendius,
I think I understand your view Spendius...That there is no way to modify the scumbag men who knock theses woman up...And leave them for dead...But it is not all on the females...

These men are just as much at fault, if not more...Because they then do not have to make that choice to their body...And have the ability to stop it from happening, but do not...And some woman may just make a poor choice with being with a loser guy...

So I would have to say a women has a right with her own body...And no man should tell her why or why not...That is just me...

But I do agree that people who believe it is wrong, should not be obligated to perform an abortion if they do not agree...Or it is against their morality as well...

I personally think that preachers who teach not do have an abortion are truly because they care...And want to be supportive...Even if they do not do the proper things...all the time...I think they mean well....Much more than the ass**** who knocked them up and ran like a girl....

But in any event Spendius...Even if the Church and such mean well....It is always a free choice by the female...

And it is not for anyone else to decide, but them...It is their life, and it is their body mate...
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 04:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Please, Spendius, if you think women want to have their rights restricted so that people like you can feel good about yourself...you are dead wrong.

But you are stuck in this position...and you refuse to stop digging.


It has nothing to do with what I feel about myself. I'm not stuck in any position and I will certainly not stop digging.

Women have the ******* rights you keep banging on about. What have I said to restrict them? Even if I could. What do you keep going on about rights for when they exist?

Once again "funny in a way" is MYOH.

Quote:
Explaining wouldn't do the job. You have your mind shut tight.


That's neat I must say. Asserting my mind is tight shut offered as the excuse for not explaining. MYOH.

Quote:
Right, Spendius...you want to tell women what is good for their souls. You want to decide for them what they can and cannot do...because YOU are better able to decide what will please them.


You have a problem with the word "decide". I can decide nothing. I'll tell them what is good for their souls though. Yeah!! I will. I know them inside out. I should do. And they can take it or leave it. It's advice only and it is genteel compared to what I can do.

You're saying I'm out of order making an argument and possibly because I am forcing you to look more carefully at your own.

If it's lucky for women why are they so ashamed of it? Everything I get lucky with is soon known all around. And a woman couldn't possibly keep silent about how lucky she has been.

Quote:
Is there a "man of the left" in this discussion...or is this something you made up while playing with your keyboard.


It is the impression given me by the posts of yours that I have read that you are a man of the left. If it is the wrong impression then it's your fault.

Quote:
Gimme a break. My stomach hurts.


MYOH and a crude attempt at censorship. I don't even believe you. You asserting that you are laughing does not mean you are just as "I'm fine!!!" doesn't mean things are fine. I can tell just by looking who is actually fine and they never say "I'm fine" even without the exclamation marks.

The pillow talk of married women would make your hair stand up on end.

reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 04:17 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
I personally think that preachers who teach not do have an abortion are truly because they care...And want to be supportive...Even if they do not do the proper things...all the time...I think they mean well....Much more than the ass**** who knocked them up and ran like a girl....


So you think that the preachers care more than the ass**** who knocked them up and ran like a girl? What would you think that a ass**** who knocked them up and ran like a girl could do to show his girlfriend that he cares as much as the preacher? Do you think that he would spend time with the child and give the mother the financial backing that is required to raise a child in a moderate or decent way?

Does the preacher give a young lady this type of support? What about the church do they? I wonder if they put the money they spend into their society if society would be different.
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 12:58:12