The Pope: Dback and Alex are a threat to Humanity

[kalm]

What? Diversity of opinions? Of thought? Of freedoms? Of racial tolerance? Of sexual orientation tolerance?

Intolerance resides on both sides of the aisle. But it's pretty damn easy to suggest which side tends more toward diversity and which tends more toward homogeneity. And I'm saying that from a non-judgemental, neutral position.

Yes, it is easy. One side raves about diversity, as long as you agree with them. If you don't you're an ignorant asshole in their minds.

...says the social liberal.

[D1B]

What? Diversity of opinions? Of thought? Of freedoms? Of racial tolerance? Of sexual orientation tolerance?

Intolerance resides on both sides of the aisle. But it's pretty damn easy to suggest which side tends more toward diversity and which tends more toward homogeneity. And I'm saying that from a non-judgemental, neutral position.

Yes, it is easy. One side raves about diversity, as long as you agree with them. If you don't you're an ignorant asshole in their minds.

Yep, libs rule. Keep trying, conks.

[UNI88]

Try and refute it.

What? Diversity of opinions? Of thought? Of freedoms? Of racial tolerance? Of sexual orientation tolerance?

Intolerance resides on both sides of the aisle. But it's pretty damn easy to suggest which side tends more toward diversity and which tends more toward homogeneity. And I'm saying that from a non-judgemental, neutral position.

Of all those things. And if you check in with the enlightened, progressive liberals in academia you'll notice that outside of the business school or law school, there is precious little conservative thought. And they will take serious umbrage if you have the temerity to suggest that diversity isn't just about race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. but includes opinions and thought and that they are sorely lacking in diversity of thought. I don't think you can say that one side pushes diversity more than the other.

[kalm]

What? Diversity of opinions? Of thought? Of freedoms? Of racial tolerance? Of sexual orientation tolerance?

Intolerance resides on both sides of the aisle. But it's pretty damn easy to suggest which side tends more toward diversity and which tends more toward homogeneity. And I'm saying that from a non-judgemental, neutral position.

Of all those things. And if you check in with the enlightened, progressive liberals in academia you'll notice that outside of the business school or law school, there is precious little conservative thought. And they will take serious umbrage if you have the temerity to suggest that diversity isn't just about race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. but includes opinions and thought and that they are sorely lacking in diversity of thought. I don't think you can say that one side pushes diversity more than the other.

You could be right and I really like your last two posts.

But 1) liberalism doesn't just exist in academia and 2) I sometimes think the ivory tower argument is a little overblown. I grew up in a college town, both parents were teachers (one a prof), and have been around these people my whole life, and I can tell you for certain that in the case of this directional U there is a great diversity of political opinions. Yes, it's only one univesity, but there are quite a few directional U's like it.

Perhaps it's unfair to claim one side is better when it comes to thought. But it just seems as though the conservative bubble is a little smaller and stronger. Of course part of the problem lies with the two party system which encourages people to identify with one side or the other. Go to other countries where more parties exist and you probably don't have some of these hangups.

The average US donk would be considered a right wing fanatic in most of Europe.

[dbackjon]

I do try to celebrate and encourage diversity. To me, diversity is about more than race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It's about who you are and what made you that person. A white kid who grew up on a farm in Nebraska is different from a white kid who grew up in the Bronx. Everyone brings a different perspective to the table, and those perspectives together are more powerful than just their sum.

That would be great if everyone actually thought that way, but they don't. To be honest, nobody is completely unbigoted. Anyone who says they are is lying to themselves.

I don't agree with the Pope's stance on this one (I voted for marriage equality in the last election, but I can understand his position. To be fair, at least Jon didn't wish death and damnation on him like he's done to others in the past. Maybe he's becoming more understanding.

What is there to understand about bigotry?

Do you understand Hitler's positions to?

[89Hen]

That would be great if everyone actually thought that way, but they don't. To be honest, nobody is completely unbigoted. Anyone who says they are is lying to themselves.

I don't agree with the Pope's stance on this one (I voted for marriage equality in the last election, but I can understand his position. To be fair, at least Jon didn't wish death and damnation on him like he's done to others in the past. Maybe he's becoming more understanding.

What is there to understand about bigotry?

Do you understand Hitler's positions to?

And we're to Hitler.

/thread

[89Hen]

"Intolerance resides on both sides of the aisle"... "the side tends more toward diversity"...

So you think one side is more diverse, yet has intolerance. Just seems to be a little more hypocritcal to me.

Just like "nobody is unbigoted".

Nobody is. That includes me. That includes you.

[AZGrizFan]

Yes, it is easy. One side raves about diversity, as long as you agree with them. If you don't you're an ignorant asshole in their minds.

...says the social liberal.

The difference is: I don't denigrate those who disagree with my social positions. If we wanted everyone to look, act and think alike, we'd just make Stepford wives a reality.

[kalm]

...says the social liberal.

The difference is: I don't denigrate those who disagree with my social positions. If we wanted everyone to look, act and think alike, we'd just make Stepford wives a reality.

Which makes you far better man the pope.

[AZGrizFan]

The difference is: I don't denigrate those who disagree with my social positions. If we wanted everyone to look, act and think alike, we'd just make Stepford wives a reality.

Which makes you far better man the pope.

[kalm]

What is there to understand about bigotry?

Do you understand Hitler's positions to?

And we're to Hitler.

/thread

So since obvious bigotry toward gays still deserves to be a respected opinion and if you speak out against it you're being intolerant, where do you draw the line at opinions one should not feel obligated to respect? Genocide?

[dbackjon]

...says the social liberal.

The difference is: I don't denigrate those who disagree with my social positions. If we wanted everyone to look, act and think alike, we'd just make Stepford wives a reality.

When that disagreement negatively effects my life, then it is personal.

[AZGrizFan]

The difference is: I don't denigrate those who disagree with my social positions. If we wanted everyone to look, act and think alike, we'd just make Stepford wives a reality.

When that disagreement negatively effects my life, then it is personal.

I refer you back to my first post on this subject.

[ASUMountaineer]

The difference is: I don't denigrate those who disagree with my social positions. If we wanted everyone to look, act and think alike, we'd just make Stepford wives a reality.

When that disagreement negatively effects my life, then it is personal.

Then, you should be a libertarian. "Live and let live, as long as it doesn't impact my ability to do the same." That's a great mantra, too bad neither major political party embraces that philosophy.

[UNI88]

And we're to Hitler.

/thread

So since obvious bigotry toward gays still deserves to be a respected opinion and if you speak out against it you're being intolerant, where do you draw the line at opinions one should not feel obligated to respect? Genocide?

IMO - everyone is entitled to their opinion - bigoted, racist, sexist, whatever they think, they're entitled to think it. The line is subjective and where it comes into play is when their opinion becomes action against another group of people. The Pope or any other Christian is entitled to interpret the Bible to say that homosexuality is wrong. My problems with the Pope's statement is threefold:
1) By stating that homosexuality is a threat to humanity, he is advocating action against homosexuals. No their lives aren't in danger but he does want to deny them something that heterosexual couples have relatively easy access to.
2) I find it very un-Christian to act in this manner. A Christian should attempt to welcome all of God's children and to counsel those he/she feels have strayed. They shouldn't be trying to demonize a group of people because they disapprove of their lifestyle.
3) He has little to no credibility. The first moral crisis he needed to tackle was child molestation, especially by priests. If he had come out strongly against that and taken action to fix the problems in his own church and to help all of the victims and alleged victims regardless of the financial cost or impact on the number of priests, he would be in a much better position to attempt and take the moral high ground.

[89Hen]

And we're to Hitler.

/thread

So since obvious bigotry toward gays still deserves to be a respected opinion and if you speak out against it you're being intolerant, where do you draw the line at opinions one should not feel obligated to respect? Genocide?

Quite the stretch there Kalm. All the Pope has said is that it is his belief marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Don't forget, the Catholic church will not marry a divorced person either.

[89Hen]

1) By stating that homosexuality is a threat to humanity...

Maybe you think it's sematics, but he didn't say homosexuality is a threat to humanity.

[dbackjon]

1) By stating that homosexuality is a threat to humanity...

Maybe you think it's sematics, but he didn't say homosexuality is a threat to humanity.

To your biased mind, maybe not. But to reasonable people, he did.

[kalm]

So since obvious bigotry toward gays still deserves to be a respected opinion and if you speak out against it you're being intolerant, where do you draw the line at opinions one should not feel obligated to respect? Genocide?

Quite the stretch there Kalm. All the Pope has said is that it is his belief marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Don't forget, the Catholic church will not marry a divorced person either.

No, here's what he said:

"Policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself," The Pontiff said, according to Reuters.

"The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and states," he said. "Pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman," he added.

And you conks make fun of John for whining.

Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/po ... 8xuqrgy.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[UNI88]

Maybe you think it's sematics, but he didn't say homosexuality is a threat to humanity.

To your biased mind, maybe not. But to reasonable people, he did.

Technically, 89 is correct - what I typed did not accurately reflect the Pope's statement so let me revise my post:

IMO - everyone is entitled to their opinion - bigoted, racist, sexist, whatever they think, they're entitled to think it. The line is subjective and where it comes into play is when their opinion becomes action against another group of people. The Pope or any other Christian is entitled to interpret the Bible to say that homosexuality is wrong. My problems with the Pope's statement is threefold:
1) By stating that same sex marriage is a threat to humanity, he is advocating action against homosexuals. No their lives aren't in danger but he does want to deny them something that heterosexual couples have relatively easy access to.
2) I find it very un-Christian to act in this manner. A Christian should attempt to welcome all of God's children and to counsel those he/she feels have strayed. They shouldn't be trying to demonize a group of people because they disapprove of their lifestyle.
3) He has little to no credibility. The first moral crisis he needed to tackle was child molestation, especially by priests. If he had come out strongly against that and taken action to fix the problems in his own church and to help all of the victims and alleged victims regardless of the financial cost or impact on the number of priests, he would be in a much better position to attempt and take the moral high ground.

[UNI88]

So since obvious bigotry toward gays still deserves to be a respected opinion and if you speak out against it you're being intolerant, where do you draw the line at opinions one should not feel obligated to respect? Genocide?

Quite the stretch there Kalm. All the Pope has said is that it is his belief marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Don't forget, the Catholic church will not marry a divorced person either unless they make a large enough donation to have the prior marriage annulled.

FIFY

[89Hen]

Maybe you think it's sematics, but he didn't say homosexuality is a threat to humanity.

To your biased mind, maybe not. But to reasonable people, he did.

And you're impartial on this one.

[89Hen]

Quite the stretch there Kalm. All the Pope has said is that it is his belief marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Don't forget, the Catholic church will not marry a divorced person either.

No, here's what he said:

"Policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself," The Pontiff said, according to Reuters.

"The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and states," he said. "Pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman," he added.

And you conks make fun of John for whining.

OK, which part am I missing? What I said was true. Your stretch was a stretch.

[kalm]

No, here's what he said:




And you conks make fun of John for whining.

OK, which part am I missing? What I said was true. Your stretch was a stretch.

"Policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself,"

So you don't like the bigot charge. I get it.

[dbackjon]

Policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself," The Pontiff said, according to Reuters.

So, again, how am I wrong.


Pope Nazi is one sick fucker. And anyone that donates to him is complacent in the evils that the Vatican sponsors.

As far as not calling for death, that is EXACTLY what is happening in Uganda and other parts of Africa. Words such as his only embolden and allow the anti-gay mobs to justify their hatred and killing in the name of the Lord.

The Pope has blood on his hands.