Aizle wrote:
DFK! wrote:
What he is effectively stating is that being a Catholic priest turns you into a **** pedophile.
Yeah, except that it's NOT what I've been saying, and have repeatedly clarified that point several times you retard.
What was that about retarded? Let's try speaking English first, limp-dick.
DFK! wrote:
You know, I've been skipping whole pages of this thread because I don't care much, but this post seemed to mandate some attention.
Now, let's look at your first post of the thread, supporting Xequecal's believe that being a Catholic priest makes you a pedophile:
Aizle wrote:
Hopwin wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Catholic doctrine makes sex crimes far more likely. What do you think is going to happen when you tell men that not only can they never have sex, ever, but it's sinful for them to even think about it?
It's also illegal to have sex with goats but I haven't seen a run on farms.
You haven't been to Montana have you?
The flaw with your analogy is that most farmers aren't celebate. The point Xeq is making is that you're putting people into a position where they are having to repress what is arguably the most primal and core driver of the human race. That's going to have some adverse affects, because it's a completely unnatural act.
Then, let's look at you trying to clarify yourself in the next post, while simultaneously trying to mealy-mouth the issue:
Aizle wrote:
To be clear, I don't believe that celebacy turns men into pedophiles. However I do believe that celebacy does cause a lot of stress that comes out in odd ways and wrongheaded thinking about most things sexual in nature.
[bold mine]
Personally, given that I can read and speak English, I think the bolded part falls entirely into line with this statement of mine:
DFK! wrote:
What he is effectively stating is that being a Catholic priest turns you into a **** pedophile.
[underline added]
See, in English, adverbs modify verbs.
That use of "effectively stating" is further substantiated by statements of yours such as this:
Aizle wrote:
Not so much missed something, as are trying to use a shade of grey as a black and white switch. I'm certain there are some pedophiles that have gotten into the clergy that would have been pedophiles regardless. I'm also certain there are those who have entered the clergy and have reacted very poorly to the limitations and restrictions put on them and made some terrible decisions and became pedophiles.
[underline mine]
Then there's this post, where you do not in any way refute Khross's characterization of your opinion as [effectively] being that being a priest causes pedophilia:
Aizle wrote:
Khross wrote:
Having strong opinions is one thing; asserting your opinions are correct with no evidential support for their veracity is another. You think the Church is harmful; yet, as usual, refuse to support your beliefs with anything subject to critique. The only evidence you've provided is a speech full of glaring falsehoods and misinformation. More to the point, you're propagating a media bias about the "propensity" of abuse within the Priesthood without abandon. You have an agenda to push that has nothing to do with facts or history. Consequently, your bigotry is rather obvious.
Ah I see, so now it's the "liberal" media who's conspiring to attack the Church.
I have supported my position, the fact is you don't like it and have your undies in a bunch. Tough.
In other words, your statements could easily be taken to support the idea that becoming a Catholic priest makes you a pedophile, if not universally than at least "frequently."
Furthermore, since I wasn't addressing you when I was pointing out to RD that slanderous and bigoted statements should require substantiation, you could feel free to support anything you say on this forum when you're attacking a billion people's religion.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Sometimes it seems so unfair...
