Topic: Yes, I'm a misogynist but it's OK because it's tradition.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg started this discussion 2 weeks ago #136,568
Also, it's not me that started that tradition its jesus.
Some people think it's ok to view women as emotional, and while there's a long tradition of that too, only my excuse counts. Those other people hate women, but it's not hate when I tell you Jesus himself doesn't want women leading the church.
Some people think it's ok to view women as emotional, and while there's a long tradition of that too, only my excuse counts. Those other people hate women, but it's not hate when I tell you Jesus himself doesn't want women leading the church.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #1,449,464
Obviously women are emotional. Men are emotional too. That’s why you’re bickering!
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 48 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,465
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
As long as we all agree women aren't fit as spiritual leaders!
As long as we all agree women aren't fit as spiritual leaders!
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,471
@previous (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
Women have a place in the church, they just have different roles due to tradition. I don’t agree with the premise that women are inferior and you’re being childish.
Women have a place in the church, they just have different roles due to tradition. I don’t agree with the premise that women are inferior and you’re being childish.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,473
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> Women have a place in the church, they just have different roles due to tradition.
Bullshit, all the leadership roles are men only.
> I don’t agree with the premise that women are inferior and you’re being childish.
The Catholic Church bans women from leadership roles, women can only serve in inferior roles. As in, the literal definition of the word inferior.
Can you explain why "tradition" isn't an excuse for calling women emotional, but is an excuse for relegating them to non leadership roles?
Spoiler he can't
> Women have a place in the church, they just have different roles due to tradition.
Bullshit, all the leadership roles are men only.
> I don’t agree with the premise that women are inferior and you’re being childish.
The Catholic Church bans women from leadership roles, women can only serve in inferior roles. As in, the literal definition of the word inferior.
Can you explain why "tradition" isn't an excuse for calling women emotional, but is an excuse for relegating them to non leadership roles?
Spoiler he can't
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,475
I don’t even think being emotional is inherently a bad thing, it’s natural. Obviously yeah in some situations you need to control your emotions and that comes with being an adult. But it’s part of this human experience of being alive and part of the beauty of life. And then if I’m not romanticizing it and I’m speaking from a purely rational perspective, emotions evolved to keep us alive, they’re instinctual.But forget that, back to the emotional argument. Do you really want to be the guy who feels no emotions? That’s like being SpongeBob without the holes, like come on.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 39 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,476
@1,449,473 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
I would never call a nun inferior, but you’re a piece of shit with no respect for anything in this world so that doesn’t surprise me.
I would never call a nun inferior, but you’re a piece of shit with no respect for anything in this world so that doesn’t surprise me.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,478
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It doesn't matter if you would call it that, the definitions for "superior" and "inferior" are clear, you can look them up.
All nuns have are subject to a superior authority in the church, a male bishop. That is how the rules of the church work.
It doesn't matter if you would call it that, the definitions for "superior" and "inferior" are clear, you can look them up.
All nuns have are subject to a superior authority in the church, a male bishop. That is how the rules of the church work.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 54 seconds later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,479
@previous (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
The pope is also subject to a superior authority in the church. The authority of everyone in the church comes from the Holy Spirit because God has ultimate authority.
The pope is also subject to a superior authority in the church. The authority of everyone in the church comes from the Holy Spirit because God has ultimate authority.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,480
@1,449,475 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Being called emotional doesn't mean you have emotions, it means you aren't controlling your emotions.
I know a lot of men who have called women as a group emotional, I have never heard a man seriously say men don't have emotions.
Being called emotional doesn't mean you have emotions, it means you aren't controlling your emotions.
I know a lot of men who have called women as a group emotional, I have never heard a man seriously say men don't have emotions.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,481
I also feel like this argument is so stupid because you clearly don’t care about God. You clearly don’t care if God exists or care what God wants, you’re just sexist and you want to believe or not believe in God based on what your own preconceptions of inferiority and superiority. That’s not Christian in any sense, so I don’t even feel like this debate is worth anything since your argument is disingenuous. You don’t actually want what you’re pretending that you want.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,482
@1,449,479 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Does that change anything about what I said?
The actual people running the church are male.
Including the mythical god figure would only be a counter argument if that god was portrayed as a woman. Since the official teaching is that god was born as a man, and he said he was sent by his father, how does that help you here?
inb4 "god is genderless, so it doesn't matter the actual organization is entirely run by men".
Does that change anything about what I said?
The actual people running the church are male.
Including the mythical god figure would only be a counter argument if that god was portrayed as a woman. Since the official teaching is that god was born as a man, and he said he was sent by his father, how does that help you here?
inb4 "god is genderless, so it doesn't matter the actual organization is entirely run by men".
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,483
@1,449,481 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The actual point I'm making is that you call it hate when I say women are emotional, but you are in a church that bans women from all leadership positions.
Your view of women is much stricter on them than mine.
The actual point I'm making is that you call it hate when I say women are emotional, but you are in a church that bans women from all leadership positions.
Your view of women is much stricter on them than mine.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,484
Hierarchy isn’t about superiority and inferiority. If you are above somebody in a hierarchy, that’s purely organizational. The pope doesn’t have to be a saint. You can have a hierarchy where someone with a higher position of authority is a worse person than someone in a lower position of authority. I’m not saying the pope is a bad person, I’m just saying, the fact that different people have different roles in the church says nothing of their worth has human beings. And that’s a really fundamental error in morality on your part. It’s also a failure in logic I guess, because there’s no reason to assume people who are higher up in any arbitrary hierarchy are superior as people.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,485
Plus you're hiding behind church myth and tradition, you never actually defend why a real organization in our world should not have women as leaders.
You say you're against misogyny, and then you have this huge asterisk of "unless you appeal to religion, then it's OK".
You say you're against misogyny, and then you have this huge asterisk of "unless you appeal to religion, then it's OK".
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,486
@1,449,484 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Once again you need to open up a dictionary and learn those words.
Superior and inferior started as ways of denoting where someone fell in a heirarchy, so this entire excuse just shows you don't know what the words mean.
Once again you need to open up a dictionary and learn those words.
Superior and inferior started as ways of denoting where someone fell in a heirarchy, so this entire excuse just shows you don't know what the words mean.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,487
@1,449,483 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
No it’s not. I’m less sexist than you are by a long shot. I’m not saying what I want to be the case I’m just saying what is the case about the church. It’s a 2,000+ year old organization that tries to adhere to tradition, it’s not hard to understand that someone could understand the value of tradition and understand that women are important and that women can lead. Even if I was super strict about the church, which I’m not really, that doesn’t say anything about my view of women in politics or even the views of Catholics in politics in general. The prime minister of Italy is a woman. It’s a false characterization that Catholics are against women in governmental leadership. The church is its own thing.
No it’s not. I’m less sexist than you are by a long shot. I’m not saying what I want to be the case I’m just saying what is the case about the church. It’s a 2,000+ year old organization that tries to adhere to tradition, it’s not hard to understand that someone could understand the value of tradition and understand that women are important and that women can lead. Even if I was super strict about the church, which I’m not really, that doesn’t say anything about my view of women in politics or even the views of Catholics in politics in general. The prime minister of Italy is a woman. It’s a false characterization that Catholics are against women in governmental leadership. The church is its own thing.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,488
@1,449,486 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
There’s a difference between a structural hierarchy and a conceptual hierarchy on the worth of human beings. I think everybody would admit that the United States has a hierarchy built into our structure of government, but you’d have to be a complete moron to say it’s the same thing as the Nazi racial hierarchy for example. There’s a fundamental difference between hierarchies that exist purely out of logistical necessity vs hierarchies of worth. You should be able to understand that if you’re of average intelligence because people of average intelligence never really get confused about that.
There’s a difference between a structural hierarchy and a conceptual hierarchy on the worth of human beings. I think everybody would admit that the United States has a hierarchy built into our structure of government, but you’d have to be a complete moron to say it’s the same thing as the Nazi racial hierarchy for example. There’s a fundamental difference between hierarchies that exist purely out of logistical necessity vs hierarchies of worth. You should be able to understand that if you’re of average intelligence because people of average intelligence never really get confused about that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,489
Saying that a bishop is superior in worth to a nun would be like saying your boss is superior in worth to you just because you work for them. That doesn’t make any sense and almost nobody who has their head screwed on correctly thinks that.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,491
@1,449,487 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I never even said "government" you are strawmanning, again, to avoid engaging with the actual argument.
@1,449,488 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
So I did use inferior right, but you're going to write a wall of text to try and distract from thag.
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The Catholic church actually uses these terms by the way, literally even regularly using "superior" for positions.
This reminds me of when you called me an idiot for saying objectivity mattered, and the next day the Pope issued a statement saying society doesn't take objectivity seriously.
Somehow it's a problem when I say it, and then you don't have any problem when the church says it.
Almost as if you have no moral consistency, and don't evaluate ideas on their own, but only know blind faith and blind hate.
I never even said "government" you are strawmanning, again, to avoid engaging with the actual argument.
@1,449,488 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
So I did use inferior right, but you're going to write a wall of text to try and distract from thag.
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The Catholic church actually uses these terms by the way, literally even regularly using "superior" for positions.
This reminds me of when you called me an idiot for saying objectivity mattered, and the next day the Pope issued a statement saying society doesn't take objectivity seriously.
Somehow it's a problem when I say it, and then you don't have any problem when the church says it.
Almost as if you have no moral consistency, and don't evaluate ideas on their own, but only know blind faith and blind hate.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 36 seconds later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,492
@1,449,489 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The Church is the one using this terminology, you are such a fucking idiot 😂
The Church is the one using this terminology, you are such a fucking idiot 😂
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,493
@1,449,491 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
You didn’t have to say government. You’re trying to claim that women are inferior to men. You’re arguing that women should be considered inferior in all social aspects.
You didn’t have to say government. You’re trying to claim that women are inferior to men. You’re arguing that women should be considered inferior in all social aspects.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,495
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> You’re arguing that women should be considered inferior in all social aspects.
Explicitly strawmanning again.
And I'll say what I always say: quote where I argued this.
And you won't, because you're just lying in a desperate attempt to get one win in a conversation where you made so many mistakes already.
> You’re arguing that women should be considered inferior in all social aspects.
Explicitly strawmanning again.
And I'll say what I always say: quote where I argued this.
And you won't, because you're just lying in a desperate attempt to get one win in a conversation where you made so many mistakes already.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,496
@1,449,491 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
> So I did use inferior right, but you're going to write a wall of text to try and distract from thag.
You’re obviously confusing two different ways of interpreting the same word on purpose which is irritating.
> The Catholic church actually uses these terms by the way, literally even regularly using "superior" for positions.
Yes, I am aware of this. We use it in everyday language. Nobody thinks that your boss is superior to you just because your boss is your superior. A word can have more than one definition and you’re confusing two very different meanings of the same word intentionally which is a logical fallacy.
> This reminds me of when you called me an idiot for saying objectivity mattered, and the next day the Pope issued a statement saying society doesn't take objectivity seriously.
I never said that objectivity doesn’t exist, you were screaming at me that logic is only binary when that’s actually not true. You just couldn’t conceptualize fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic and probability are still objective. Probability doesn’t mean that logic doesn’t exist and I never said that it implied that logic doesn’t exist or that objectivity doesn’t exist. I was simply arguing for degrees of truth.
> Somehow it's a problem when I say it, and then you don't have any problem when the church says it.
Because the church didn’t say what you said and you don’t even like the church.
> Almost as if you have no moral consistency, and don't evaluate ideas on their own, but only know blind faith and blind hate.
Catholicism is in fact a religion. Religion is based on faith. I’m sorry you’re just now learning this.
> So I did use inferior right, but you're going to write a wall of text to try and distract from thag.
You’re obviously confusing two different ways of interpreting the same word on purpose which is irritating.
> The Catholic church actually uses these terms by the way, literally even regularly using "superior" for positions.
Yes, I am aware of this. We use it in everyday language. Nobody thinks that your boss is superior to you just because your boss is your superior. A word can have more than one definition and you’re confusing two very different meanings of the same word intentionally which is a logical fallacy.
> This reminds me of when you called me an idiot for saying objectivity mattered, and the next day the Pope issued a statement saying society doesn't take objectivity seriously.
I never said that objectivity doesn’t exist, you were screaming at me that logic is only binary when that’s actually not true. You just couldn’t conceptualize fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic and probability are still objective. Probability doesn’t mean that logic doesn’t exist and I never said that it implied that logic doesn’t exist or that objectivity doesn’t exist. I was simply arguing for degrees of truth.
> Somehow it's a problem when I say it, and then you don't have any problem when the church says it.
Because the church didn’t say what you said and you don’t even like the church.
> Almost as if you have no moral consistency, and don't evaluate ideas on their own, but only know blind faith and blind hate.
Catholicism is in fact a religion. Religion is based on faith. I’m sorry you’re just now learning this.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,497
You can’t make an honest argument, can you?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,498
This is the definition of superior:
Superior means better than others, higher in rank, or situated above.
There’s a difference between saying somebody is better than somebody else and saying somebody is higher in rank than somebody else. What you’re doing is equivocation which is a logical fallacy where you pretend two definitions of a word are the same. Saying that someone is superior in rank to somebody else is not the same thing as saying somebody is superior in worth to somebody else. But you’re shifting from saying nuns are inferior to bishops in terms of rank to saying women are inferior to men in terms of worth. That’s a logical fallacy.
Superior means better than others, higher in rank, or situated above.
There’s a difference between saying somebody is better than somebody else and saying somebody is higher in rank than somebody else. What you’re doing is equivocation which is a logical fallacy where you pretend two definitions of a word are the same. Saying that someone is superior in rank to somebody else is not the same thing as saying somebody is superior in worth to somebody else. But you’re shifting from saying nuns are inferior to bishops in terms of rank to saying women are inferior to men in terms of worth. That’s a logical fallacy.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,499
@1,449,496 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> You’re obviously confusing two different ways of interpreting the same word on purpose which is irritating.
How is that "obvious"?
I'd say it'a obvious I'm using the word exactly as it's always used in this context. The church itself uses this terminology.
>
> > The Catholic church actually uses these terms by the way, literally even regularly using "superior" for positions.
>
> Yes, I am aware of this. We use it in everyday language. Nobody thinks that your boss is superior to you just because your boss is your superior. A word can have more than one definition and you’re confusing two very different meanings of the same word intentionally which is a logical fallacy.
I'm using it exactly as the church does: the church thinks all important decisions need to ultimately be up to a man.
You can dress that up however you want, but there will never be a woman in charge of a male order, and there will always be a man with authority over the nuns.
> > This reminds me of when you called me an idiot for saying objectivity mattered, and the next day the Pope issued a statement saying society doesn't take objectivity seriously.
>
> I never said that objectivity doesn’t exist, you were screaming at me that logic is only binary
LOL, another explicit lie.
You always avoid giving quotes, but I'll ask each time just so anyone reading knows: where did I say logic is always binary?
I never did, you are strawmanning because that is how you always try and deflect. Literally every thread, and you never, ever think to ask yourself "did I strawman? he always calls me out, so I should avoid using the same tactic that always gets called out".
This is a mental disorder, you should know by know I'm going to challenge you for a quote.
> when that’s actually not true. You just couldn’t conceptualize fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic and probability are still objective. Probability doesn’t mean that logic doesn’t exist and I never said that it implied that logic doesn’t exist or that objectivity doesn’t exist. I was simply arguing for degrees of truth.
I never denied fuzzy logic, or probabilities.
>
> > Somehow it's a problem when I say it, and then you don't have any problem when the church says it.
>
> Because the church didn’t say what you said and you don’t even like the church.
The church 100% says women can't be Bishops, and it 100% uses language like "superior".
Of course you probably have some strawman lined up so you can say "the church never said [x]" and so I'll say this ahead of time: can you actually quote where I said whatever thing you are about to make up? No? then it'a also a strawman.
> > Almost as if you have no moral consistency, and don't evaluate ideas on their own, but only know blind faith and blind hate.
>
> Catholicism is in fact a religion. Religion is based on faith. I’m sorry you’re just now learning this.
And how is faith an excuse for misogyny?
If I said I had "faith" that women were emotional because of some religion, does it all suddenly make it Ok?
If so, that's dumb. and if not, that's a double standard.
> You’re obviously confusing two different ways of interpreting the same word on purpose which is irritating.
How is that "obvious"?
I'd say it'a obvious I'm using the word exactly as it's always used in this context. The church itself uses this terminology.
>
> > The Catholic church actually uses these terms by the way, literally even regularly using "superior" for positions.
>
> Yes, I am aware of this. We use it in everyday language. Nobody thinks that your boss is superior to you just because your boss is your superior. A word can have more than one definition and you’re confusing two very different meanings of the same word intentionally which is a logical fallacy.
I'm using it exactly as the church does: the church thinks all important decisions need to ultimately be up to a man.
You can dress that up however you want, but there will never be a woman in charge of a male order, and there will always be a man with authority over the nuns.
> > This reminds me of when you called me an idiot for saying objectivity mattered, and the next day the Pope issued a statement saying society doesn't take objectivity seriously.
>
> I never said that objectivity doesn’t exist, you were screaming at me that logic is only binary
LOL, another explicit lie.
You always avoid giving quotes, but I'll ask each time just so anyone reading knows: where did I say logic is always binary?
I never did, you are strawmanning because that is how you always try and deflect. Literally every thread, and you never, ever think to ask yourself "did I strawman? he always calls me out, so I should avoid using the same tactic that always gets called out".
This is a mental disorder, you should know by know I'm going to challenge you for a quote.
> when that’s actually not true. You just couldn’t conceptualize fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic and probability are still objective. Probability doesn’t mean that logic doesn’t exist and I never said that it implied that logic doesn’t exist or that objectivity doesn’t exist. I was simply arguing for degrees of truth.
I never denied fuzzy logic, or probabilities.
>
> > Somehow it's a problem when I say it, and then you don't have any problem when the church says it.
>
> Because the church didn’t say what you said and you don’t even like the church.
The church 100% says women can't be Bishops, and it 100% uses language like "superior".
Of course you probably have some strawman lined up so you can say "the church never said [x]" and so I'll say this ahead of time: can you actually quote where I said whatever thing you are about to make up? No? then it'a also a strawman.
> > Almost as if you have no moral consistency, and don't evaluate ideas on their own, but only know blind faith and blind hate.
>
> Catholicism is in fact a religion. Religion is based on faith. I’m sorry you’re just now learning this.
And how is faith an excuse for misogyny?
If I said I had "faith" that women were emotional because of some religion, does it all suddenly make it Ok?
If so, that's dumb. and if not, that's a double standard.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,500
@1,449,497 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Notice here that the accusation is vague, there's nothing here showing where I was dishonest about something.
This is how it always happens when you've failed on a dozen previous points, you just make vague personal attacks.
Notice here that the accusation is vague, there's nothing here showing where I was dishonest about something.
This is how it always happens when you've failed on a dozen previous points, you just make vague personal attacks.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,501
@1,449,498 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Is this the third or 4th time you've quoted a definition that actually fits what I said?
Bishops are higher in rank, or "situated above" women in the church.
Is this the third or 4th time you've quoted a definition that actually fits what I said?
Bishops are higher in rank, or "situated above" women in the church.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,502
@1,449,499 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
> I'm using it exactly as the church does: the church thinks all important decisions need to ultimately be up to a man.
This is false.
> I'm using it exactly as the church does: the church thinks all important decisions need to ultimately be up to a man.
This is false.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,503
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,504
@1,449,498 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> This is the definition of superior:
>
> Superior means better than others, higher in rank, or situated above.
>
> There’s a difference between saying somebody is better than somebody else and saying somebody is higher in rank than somebody else. What you’re doing is equivocation which is a logical fallacy where you pretend two definitions of a word are the same. Saying that someone is superior in rank to somebody else is not the same thing as saying somebody is superior in worth to somebody else. But you’re shifting from saying nuns are inferior to bishops in terms of rank to saying women are inferior to men in terms of worth. That’s a logical fallacy.
Interesting how you haven’t addressed this.
> This is the definition of superior:
>
> Superior means better than others, higher in rank, or situated above.
>
> There’s a difference between saying somebody is better than somebody else and saying somebody is higher in rank than somebody else. What you’re doing is equivocation which is a logical fallacy where you pretend two definitions of a word are the same. Saying that someone is superior in rank to somebody else is not the same thing as saying somebody is superior in worth to somebody else. But you’re shifting from saying nuns are inferior to bishops in terms of rank to saying women are inferior to men in terms of worth. That’s a logical fallacy.
Interesting how you haven’t addressed this.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 55 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,505
@1,449,502 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@1,449,503 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Nowhere in that article does the Pope say women can be Bishops, he just appreciates their role in the church.
So it is true, ultimately women sit under men in the heirarchy. The roles that actually have final decision making power (bishops namely) are male-only.
Being appreciated isn't the same thing as having an actual position of authority the way Bishops do.
@1,449,503 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Nowhere in that article does the Pope say women can be Bishops, he just appreciates their role in the church.
So it is true, ultimately women sit under men in the heirarchy. The roles that actually have final decision making power (bishops namely) are male-only.
Being appreciated isn't the same thing as having an actual position of authority the way Bishops do.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,506
@1,449,504 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I did address it, here:
@1,449,501 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
I did address it, here:
@1,449,501 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,507
@1,449,505 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
Hmm, that’s interesting. The church thinks women can’t be bishops. That’s not what I responded to. This is what I said:
@1,449,502 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> > I'm using it exactly as the church does: the church thinks all important decisions need to ultimately be up to a man.
>
> This is false.
Hmm, that’s interesting. The church thinks women can’t be bishops. That’s not what I responded to. This is what I said:
@1,449,502 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> > I'm using it exactly as the church does: the church thinks all important decisions need to ultimately be up to a man.
>
> This is false.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,508
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,509
This is not a valid response
@1,449,501 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
> Is this the third or 4th time you've quoted a definition that actually fits what I said?
>
> Bishops are higher in rank, or "situated above" women in the church.
To this complaint
@1,449,498 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> This is the definition of superior:
>
> Superior means better than others, higher in rank, or situated above.
>
> There’s a difference between saying somebody is better than somebody else and saying somebody is higher in rank than somebody else. What you’re doing is equivocation which is a logical fallacy where you pretend two definitions of a word are the same. Saying that someone is superior in rank to somebody else is not the same thing as saying somebody is superior in worth to somebody else. But you’re shifting from saying nuns are inferior to bishops in terms of rank to saying women are inferior to men in terms of worth. That’s a logical fallacy.
It is very obviously insufficient.
@1,449,501 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
> Is this the third or 4th time you've quoted a definition that actually fits what I said?
>
> Bishops are higher in rank, or "situated above" women in the church.
To this complaint
@1,449,498 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> This is the definition of superior:
>
> Superior means better than others, higher in rank, or situated above.
>
> There’s a difference between saying somebody is better than somebody else and saying somebody is higher in rank than somebody else. What you’re doing is equivocation which is a logical fallacy where you pretend two definitions of a word are the same. Saying that someone is superior in rank to somebody else is not the same thing as saying somebody is superior in worth to somebody else. But you’re shifting from saying nuns are inferior to bishops in terms of rank to saying women are inferior to men in terms of worth. That’s a logical fallacy.
It is very obviously insufficient.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,510
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,511
Maybe you’re just too stupid to understand what I said, but it’s clear enough already I’m not going to explain it for you further.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,512
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,513
@1,449,509 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You probably think it's insufficient because you don't know what "or" means.
It doesn't say "and" you don't need to mean all three criteria listed.
You probably think it's insufficient because you don't know what "or" means.
It doesn't say "and" you don't need to mean all three criteria listed.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,514
@previous (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
If you think that’s what the issue is, that just proves you’re stupid.
If you think that’s what the issue is, that just proves you’re stupid.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,515
@1,449,512 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Equivocation is switching between two definitions and acting like it's the same.
When I use it to refer to rank, like the church does, and you act like that also means it's "better than" you are equivocating, not me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Equivocation is switching between two definitions and acting like it's the same.
When I use it to refer to rank, like the church does, and you act like that also means it's "better than" you are equivocating, not me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 52 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,516
@1,449,514 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I used the word to refer to rank, and you acted like I must mean "better than".
You are literally equivocating on the definition, and then acting like I am, despite the fact that I clearly stated what I meant multiple times.
I used the word to refer to rank, and you acted like I must mean "better than".
You are literally equivocating on the definition, and then acting like I am, despite the fact that I clearly stated what I meant multiple times.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,517
Or means it can mean this, or it can mean that, not both at the same time. Meeting one definition doesn’t imply it meets the other definition.
It’s easy to prove this.
Take these as givens:
A: x is better than y
B: x is higher in rank than y
C = A or B
Okay? C is the definition of the word superior.
You’re saying B is true, therefore C is true, therefore A is true. But it doesn’t work like that. And if you had a brain it would be obvious why.
It’s easy to prove this.
Take these as givens:
A: x is better than y
B: x is higher in rank than y
C = A or B
Okay? C is the definition of the word superior.
You’re saying B is true, therefore C is true, therefore A is true. But it doesn’t work like that. And if you had a brain it would be obvious why.
(Edited 39 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,518
You’re arrogant but you can’t use basic logic.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,519
The issue here is that C being true does not imply A is true. A implies C and B also implies C but reverse implication doesn’t work. You can’t do that. That’s what you were doing.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,520
@1,449,517 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> Or means it can mean this, or it can mean that, not both at the same time. Meeting one definition doesn’t imply it meets the other definition.
I just said that twice. Did you read where I just said that, or are you just ignoring what I write and making up stuff for me?
>
> You’re saying B is true, therefore C is true, therefore A is true. But it doesn’t work like that. And if you had a brain it would be obvious why.
No, I didn't say that, I think it's more than enough to show that the church doesn't let them be in leadership positions.
Whatever the justification is, you are limiting the authority women can have in the church.
That alone is bad enough. I've called women emotional before, but that's nothing compared to telling them that no matter what they can never be one of the actual leaders.
> Or means it can mean this, or it can mean that, not both at the same time. Meeting one definition doesn’t imply it meets the other definition.
I just said that twice. Did you read where I just said that, or are you just ignoring what I write and making up stuff for me?
>
> You’re saying B is true, therefore C is true, therefore A is true. But it doesn’t work like that. And if you had a brain it would be obvious why.
No, I didn't say that, I think it's more than enough to show that the church doesn't let them be in leadership positions.
Whatever the justification is, you are limiting the authority women can have in the church.
That alone is bad enough. I've called women emotional before, but that's nothing compared to telling them that no matter what they can never be one of the actual leaders.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,521
And this should be obvious to you, because (this connects back to the debate we had before about fuzzy logic) definitions don’t determine reality, they’re abstractions of reality, and your definition can’t be the basis of how you think because it isn’t precise enough.
(Edited 5 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,522
@1,449,520 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
You’re still doing it though. You’re saying women have a lower status in the hierarchy within the church therefore women are worth less than men, but you can’t make that leap in logic. That’s equivocation and it relies on reverse implication which doesn’t work.
You’re still doing it though. You’re saying women have a lower status in the hierarchy within the church therefore women are worth less than men, but you can’t make that leap in logic. That’s equivocation and it relies on reverse implication which doesn’t work.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,523
Like yeah, the definition of the word superior means higher in status or better in worth. If you’re higher in status that doesn’t automatically also mean you’re better in worth. That’s not how logic works.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,524
@1,449,521 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> And this should be obvious to you, because (this connects back to the debate we had before about fuzzy logic) definitions don’t determine reality, they’re abstractions of reality, and your definition can’t be the basis of how you think because it isn’t precise enough.
You said I used the wrong words, when your church uses those exact same words.
You called me an idiot for using the exact same language the church uses, as if it was completely the wrong word.
The fact that the church uses it, and the dictionary defines it as I used it shows it's a perfectly fine word to use here.
Going off on how "definitions are abstractions" is bs to avoid admitting you were wrong.
> And this should be obvious to you, because (this connects back to the debate we had before about fuzzy logic) definitions don’t determine reality, they’re abstractions of reality, and your definition can’t be the basis of how you think because it isn’t precise enough.
You said I used the wrong words, when your church uses those exact same words.
You called me an idiot for using the exact same language the church uses, as if it was completely the wrong word.
The fact that the church uses it, and the dictionary defines it as I used it shows it's a perfectly fine word to use here.
Going off on how "definitions are abstractions" is bs to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,525
Do I need to show you the truth table for or just to prove this? If P is true, P or Q is true, but you can’t say whether Q is true based on your knowledge of whether P is true alone by itself. That’s completely stupid.Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 54 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,526
@1,449,524 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
I didn’t say you used the wrong words, I said you used the logical fallacy of equivocation and I’m explaining something very simple to you over and over again but you can’t understand it which is really blowing my mind right now. You can’t even understand what my issue is.
I didn’t say you used the wrong words, I said you used the logical fallacy of equivocation and I’m explaining something very simple to you over and over again but you can’t understand it which is really blowing my mind right now. You can’t even understand what my issue is.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,527
@1,449,525 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
P and (P or Q) can both be true regardless of whether Q is true or false. So if you know the definition of superior can mean superior in hierarchy or it can mean superior in worth, then if you know men are superior in status in the church, you can’t then conclude that women have less worth than men which is what you’re trying to do. It just does not logically follow.
P and (P or Q) can both be true regardless of whether Q is true or false. So if you know the definition of superior can mean superior in hierarchy or it can mean superior in worth, then if you know men are superior in status in the church, you can’t then conclude that women have less worth than men which is what you’re trying to do. It just does not logically follow.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 46 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,528
And this is basic stuff why the fuck are you yapping about IQ and biological determinism if you’re so stupid you can’t understand this? How do you get through life if you’re really this stupid?
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,529
@1,449,525 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@1,449,527 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Are you going to ignore all the times I clearly said that's not my argument?: @1,449,520 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
@1,449,516 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
@1,449,515 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
Not only can you not quote me making that argument, I've said three different ways that I'm only refering to rank and that's bad enough.
You don't come across as smart when you ignore posts and strawman, you just come off as egotistical and stubborn.
@1,449,527 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Are you going to ignore all the times I clearly said that's not my argument?: @1,449,520 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
@1,449,516 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
@1,449,515 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
Not only can you not quote me making that argument, I've said three different ways that I'm only refering to rank and that's bad enough.
You don't come across as smart when you ignore posts and strawman, you just come off as egotistical and stubborn.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,530
@previous (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
It’s your entire argument! Your entire argument is that women are inferior to men in terms of worth. And you’re trying to prove it using the structural hierarchy of the Catholic Church. But it doesn’t logically follow. Your argument is fallacious.
It’s your entire argument! Your entire argument is that women are inferior to men in terms of worth. And you’re trying to prove it using the structural hierarchy of the Catholic Church. But it doesn’t logically follow. Your argument is fallacious.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,531
It doesn’t even matter if the premises of your argument are true or false it’s a broken argument. It doesn’t work logically.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,532
@1,449,530 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> It’s your entire argument! Your entire argument is that women are inferior to men in terms of worth.
I said they were inferior in rank, and not allowed to be leaders.
"in worth" was not something I ever said.
> And you’re trying to prove it using the structural hierarchy of the Catholic Church. But it doesn’t logically follow. Your argument is fallacious.
I said your church was misogynistic for not letting women be leaders.
Anything else is something you made up so that you could avoid engaging with what I actually said.
> It’s your entire argument! Your entire argument is that women are inferior to men in terms of worth.
I said they were inferior in rank, and not allowed to be leaders.
"in worth" was not something I ever said.
> And you’re trying to prove it using the structural hierarchy of the Catholic Church. But it doesn’t logically follow. Your argument is fallacious.
I said your church was misogynistic for not letting women be leaders.
Anything else is something you made up so that you could avoid engaging with what I actually said.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 55 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,533
@previous (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
But you’re misogynistic not me. You’re making a disingenuous argument. You aren’t against misogyny.
But you’re misogynistic not me. You’re making a disingenuous argument. You aren’t against misogyny.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 54 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,534
@1,449,531 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It's not an argument I made, which is why you aren't quoting the argument and critiquing it.
Here's the actual argument
P1:I said women can't be leaders in your church(true)
P2: I certainly implied not letting women be leaders is sexist.
C: I concluded your church is sexist.
It's not an argument I made, which is why you aren't quoting the argument and critiquing it.
Here's the actual argument
P1:I said women can't be leaders in your church(true)
P2: I certainly implied not letting women be leaders is sexist.
C: I concluded your church is sexist.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,535
@1,449,533 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I think women are emotional.
You are apart of a church that officially bans women from leading the church as priests/bishops/pope.
Those are two very different degrees of sexism.
I think women are emotional.
You are apart of a church that officially bans women from leading the church as priests/bishops/pope.
Those are two very different degrees of sexism.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 11 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,536
You’re not really making an argument against the Catholic Church, you’re making an argument for misogyny disguised as an argument against the Catholic Church. You don’t wish that I wasn’t Catholic, you wish that I was a misogynist and you don’t like that it’s possible for me to retain my religion and not be sexist so you are attacking my religion which shows that you are not a person of faith. You are simply a godless man who wants to twist God for your own selfish benefit.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,537
@1,449,535 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
Yeah, yours is clearly much worse. You’re arguing that women are biologically inferior to men. I’m not making any argument like that at all. It goes against my faith in God.
Yeah, yours is clearly much worse. You’re arguing that women are biologically inferior to men. I’m not making any argument like that at all. It goes against my faith in God.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,539
Men and women were each assigned separate roles on Earth by our creator, but men and women are equal in spirit and equal in importance. In order to continue the existence of our species men and women are both necessary for reproduction. Just because we are different doesn’t mean one is better than the other. I don’t believe in that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,540
God created humanity in his image. If you’re so obsessed with the idea that some humans are inferior by design, isn’t that an insult to God? Like what’s wrong with you?
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,541
@1,449,536 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
If you can't refute what I actually said, just put a bunch of words in my mouth, right?
Every thread you do this. You start by disagreeing with what I said, and then failing that you seitch to a strawman argument because you failed to address the actual argument.
@1,449,537 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Lol, how is it better to couch it in faith? I've asked this multiple times too, and never got an answer.
Maybe you won't give an answer because it's a non sequitor. I don't think any woman cares about why you're being sexist.
If you can't refute what I actually said, just put a bunch of words in my mouth, right?
Every thread you do this. You start by disagreeing with what I said, and then failing that you seitch to a strawman argument because you failed to address the actual argument.
@1,449,537 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Lol, how is it better to couch it in faith? I've asked this multiple times too, and never got an answer.
Maybe you won't give an answer because it's a non sequitor. I don't think any woman cares about why you're being sexist.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,543
@previous (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
You accuse me of putting words in my mouth and then proceed to do exactly what I accused you of every single time.
You accuse me of putting words in my mouth and then proceed to do exactly what I accused you of every single time.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,544
@1,449,541 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
> Lol, how is it better to couch it in faith? I've asked this multiple times too, and never got an answer.
When I said you were a godless man I meant it.
> Lol, how is it better to couch it in faith? I've asked this multiple times too, and never got an answer.
When I said you were a godless man I meant it.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,545
@1,449,539 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Yeah and men's role is "leader" and women's is not according to the church. How is that not misogyny?
You keep going in loops to avoid the question. How does adding faith make sexism OK?
@1,449,540 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I don't think women should be reatricted from leadership roles if they can control their emotions, but your church doesn't car either way and prohibits them from it.
100% gurantee you won't have any explanation for how faith makes it OK, because you have no reason. You just stated a non sequitor.
Yeah and men's role is "leader" and women's is not according to the church. How is that not misogyny?
You keep going in loops to avoid the question. How does adding faith make sexism OK?
@1,449,540 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I don't think women should be reatricted from leadership roles if they can control their emotions, but your church doesn't car either way and prohibits them from it.
100% gurantee you won't have any explanation for how faith makes it OK, because you have no reason. You just stated a non sequitor.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,546
@1,449,543 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@1,449,544 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Notice that you still avoided the question.
It's not like you can't make a personal attack AND answer the question.
@1,449,544 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Notice that you still avoided the question.
It's not like you can't make a personal attack AND answer the question.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 10 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,547
@1,449,545 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
Why are you so bothered. If it doesn’t make sense to you, maybe it’s your own fault for lacking understanding of the truth.
Why are you so bothered. If it doesn’t make sense to you, maybe it’s your own fault for lacking understanding of the truth.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,548
@1,449,546 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
Catholicism is a religion. How do you want me to talk about my religion without talking about my faith when by definition they’re the same thing?
Catholicism is a religion. How do you want me to talk about my religion without talking about my faith when by definition they’re the same thing?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,549
Now I don’t hate any issue with somebody’s own personal choice to be an atheist but I don’t think you’re an atheist, you seem like more of a solipsist. Your entire worldview on everything is driven by a selfish desire to aggrandize yourself. Nothing is rational.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,550
I wouldn’t be surprised if you think you’re God in your own head since you seem to have more respect for yourself than you even hold for God.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,551
For one, you have no doubt. That’s a tremendously terrible trait.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,552
@1,449,547 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I'm pointing out that you're a hypocrite, because you are fine with sexism as long as you add "because god".
Saying someone is "bothered" when they point out hypocricy doesn't make the hypocricy go away.
I'm pointing out that you're a hypocrite, because you are fine with sexism as long as you add "because god".
Saying someone is "bothered" when they point out hypocricy doesn't make the hypocricy go away.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,553
@1,449,548 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I never said faith and religion were different, I'm using them interchangeably.
I never said faith and religion were different, I'm using them interchangeably.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 34 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,554
@1,449,552 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
How is it sexist to say men and women have different but equally important roles? Do you think it’s sexist to have a women’s bathroom too?
How is it sexist to say men and women have different but equally important roles? Do you think it’s sexist to have a women’s bathroom too?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,555
@1,449,553 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
> I never said faith and religion were different, I'm using them interchangeably.
That would imply you’re asking why does my Catholicism rely on my belief in Catholicism.
> I never said faith and religion were different, I'm using them interchangeably.
That would imply you’re asking why does my Catholicism rely on my belief in Catholicism.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,556
@1,449,549 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I didn't say anything aggrandize myself.
As usual you threw out a random insult without any example of how I fit it.
If I did quote it. Criticizing someone is not self-aggrandizement.
I didn't say anything aggrandize myself.
As usual you threw out a random insult without any example of how I fit it.
If I did quote it. Criticizing someone is not self-aggrandizement.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,557
@previous (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
You never say anything bad about yourself. You’re a narcissist.
You never say anything bad about yourself. You’re a narcissist.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,558
A fairly stupid narcissist too. A lot of narcissists are actually completely aware that they’re narcissists but you’re incredibly delusional.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,559
@1,449,554 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Leadership is not "equal" to being led, the entire point of the heirarchy is to give more weight to the decisions some people make over the decision of another.
It inherently puts more value on the decisions of some over others.
Even a system like US President at least allows women to run, be elected, and sworn in. The voters might be sexist and not do it, but the constitution allows women to be President.
In Catholicism being a woman is inherently disqualifying from being any kind of Bishop. It doesn't matter how wise the woman is, all final decisions in the church will be made by a man.
That will always be more sexist than someone who has a stereotype about women being emotional.
Leadership is not "equal" to being led, the entire point of the heirarchy is to give more weight to the decisions some people make over the decision of another.
It inherently puts more value on the decisions of some over others.
Even a system like US President at least allows women to run, be elected, and sworn in. The voters might be sexist and not do it, but the constitution allows women to be President.
In Catholicism being a woman is inherently disqualifying from being any kind of Bishop. It doesn't matter how wise the woman is, all final decisions in the church will be made by a man.
That will always be more sexist than someone who has a stereotype about women being emotional.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,560
@1,449,555 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Seriously, learn to use quotes. WTF are you talking about?
Seriously, learn to use quotes. WTF are you talking about?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,561
@1,449,559 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
No it’s less sexist because it doesn’t require the belief that women are inferior because of their biology which is what you believe. A Catholic can be Catholic and vote for a woman to be the president of the United States because they believe that men and women are equal. You can’t because you think women are biologically inferior to men. That’s much worse.
No it’s less sexist because it doesn’t require the belief that women are inferior because of their biology which is what you believe. A Catholic can be Catholic and vote for a woman to be the president of the United States because they believe that men and women are equal. You can’t because you think women are biologically inferior to men. That’s much worse.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,562
The reason why priests and bishops are men is because the apostles were men and they had a particular relationship with Jesus as men as Jesus was a man. Nuns have another relationship with Jesus as women. You’re trying desperately to turn it into something that it’s not.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,563
@1,449,557 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Lol, have you done that? Wouldn't that also make you a narcissist?
And you're wrong, because a normal person usually tries to act in accordance with what they think is right. Besides, for the things we see bad in ourselves, how would that come up in our conversations? We aren't talking about our personal lives, and if I thought there was a problem in my position I'd change it.
Lol, have you done that? Wouldn't that also make you a narcissist?
And you're wrong, because a normal person usually tries to act in accordance with what they think is right. Besides, for the things we see bad in ourselves, how would that come up in our conversations? We aren't talking about our personal lives, and if I thought there was a problem in my position I'd change it.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,564
@1,449,558 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Be specific then. What did I do, and what criteria fits a narcissist?
Two small details, and then everyone who nissed it can see. You should share, why not?
Be specific then. What did I do, and what criteria fits a narcissist?
Two small details, and then everyone who nissed it can see. You should share, why not?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,565
@1,449,563 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
Yes I have done that, most people do that. You never think you’re wrong but you’re also incredibly unintelligent at the same time and it’s blatantly obvious that it’s due to your narcissism.
Yes I have done that, most people do that. You never think you’re wrong but you’re also incredibly unintelligent at the same time and it’s blatantly obvious that it’s due to your narcissism.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,566
I criticize myself all the time, I regret things and I change my mind about things, that’s normal. You never do that because you’re an idiot.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 55 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,567
@1,449,564 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
> Be specific then. What did I do, and what criteria fits a narcissist?
>
> Two small details, and then everyone who nissed it can see. You should share, why not?
Every single one from this list:
Lack of Empathy: An inability or unwillingness to recognize, feel, or care about the needs and emotions of others.
Fragile Self-Esteem: Needing constant external validation and praise to cover up deep internal insecurity.
Reactivity to Criticism: Becoming angry, defensive, or dismissive when facing minor feedback or perceived slights.
Fantasy Preoccupation: Obsessing over daydreams involving unlimited power, success, brilliance, or ideal status.
> Be specific then. What did I do, and what criteria fits a narcissist?
>
> Two small details, and then everyone who nissed it can see. You should share, why not?
Every single one from this list:
Lack of Empathy: An inability or unwillingness to recognize, feel, or care about the needs and emotions of others.
Fragile Self-Esteem: Needing constant external validation and praise to cover up deep internal insecurity.
Reactivity to Criticism: Becoming angry, defensive, or dismissive when facing minor feedback or perceived slights.
Fantasy Preoccupation: Obsessing over daydreams involving unlimited power, success, brilliance, or ideal status.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 22 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,568
It describes you perfectly.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,569
I don’t have a lack of empathy, I care about other people and I constantly defend the equality of others while you argue against it and you never put yourself in the inferior category when you do it.
You constantly crave external validation imagining an audience reading our conversations that doesn’t exist and you imagine this audience agreeing with you instead of agreeing with me even though I am aware and have said multiple times that nobody cares about our arguments and if anything other users of this website just find this annoying.
You can’t ever accept criticism, no matter what complaint or counterargument I make you never change your mind and you always think you’re right no matter what.
You have a fantasy of power and constantly say stupid things like you think Trump will nuke all the African countries or whatever dumb shit about humanoid robots and crap like that.
You constantly crave external validation imagining an audience reading our conversations that doesn’t exist and you imagine this audience agreeing with you instead of agreeing with me even though I am aware and have said multiple times that nobody cares about our arguments and if anything other users of this website just find this annoying.
You can’t ever accept criticism, no matter what complaint or counterargument I make you never change your mind and you always think you’re right no matter what.
You have a fantasy of power and constantly say stupid things like you think Trump will nuke all the African countries or whatever dumb shit about humanoid robots and crap like that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc sextuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,570
You’re a narcissist. If you want to deny it, I can’t help you, but you are just a narcissist. You’re not intelligent, you just have a big ego and that’s it.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,571
@1,449,565 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@1,449,566 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Ok quote when you did that then.
he won't!
@1,449,566 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Ok quote when you did that then.
he won't!
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,572
@previous (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
I don’t have to quote myself, I can just give a genuine self criticism.
I probably never should have bothered debating you on anything because I have a naive hope that it’s possible for someone to change their views if reason is showed to them. However, intellectually, I know that evil exists and that some people are beyond saving, so I should not have let my emotional naivety about your true nature get in the way of my rationality and I should have accepted that you were a hopeless basket case from the very beginning and saved my time.
I don’t have to quote myself, I can just give a genuine self criticism.
I probably never should have bothered debating you on anything because I have a naive hope that it’s possible for someone to change their views if reason is showed to them. However, intellectually, I know that evil exists and that some people are beyond saving, so I should not have let my emotional naivety about your true nature get in the way of my rationality and I should have accepted that you were a hopeless basket case from the very beginning and saved my time.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 8 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,573
@1,449,567 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> > Be specific then. What did I do, and what criteria fits a narcissist?
> >
> > Two small details, and then everyone who nissed it can see. You should share, why not?
>
> Every single one from this list:
>
> Lack of Empathy: An inability or unwillingness to recognize, feel, or care about the needs and emotions of others.
You strawman every thread, that's a demonstration of lack of empathy.
You can't give any real example of when I didn't empathize.
> Fragile Self-Esteem: Needing constant external validation and praise to cover up deep internal insecurity.
Which one of us goes on hate filled rants? Which one trys to focus on refutations and clear assertions?
>
> Reactivity to Criticism: Becoming angry, defensive, or dismissive when facing minor feedback or perceived slights.
I try to stay on topic, answer simple questions.
You refuse to answer questions and then make multiple personal attacks in a row instead of refuting the last thing I said.
>
> Fantasy Preoccupation: Obsessing over daydreams involving unlimited power, success, brilliance, or ideal status.
Lol, when did I ever do this?
> > Be specific then. What did I do, and what criteria fits a narcissist?
> >
> > Two small details, and then everyone who nissed it can see. You should share, why not?
>
> Every single one from this list:
>
> Lack of Empathy: An inability or unwillingness to recognize, feel, or care about the needs and emotions of others.
You strawman every thread, that's a demonstration of lack of empathy.
You can't give any real example of when I didn't empathize.
> Fragile Self-Esteem: Needing constant external validation and praise to cover up deep internal insecurity.
Which one of us goes on hate filled rants? Which one trys to focus on refutations and clear assertions?
>
> Reactivity to Criticism: Becoming angry, defensive, or dismissive when facing minor feedback or perceived slights.
I try to stay on topic, answer simple questions.
You refuse to answer questions and then make multiple personal attacks in a row instead of refuting the last thing I said.
>
> Fantasy Preoccupation: Obsessing over daydreams involving unlimited power, success, brilliance, or ideal status.
Lol, when did I ever do this?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,574
@previous (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
I told you when you do that at the end of the comment following that one.
I told you when you do that at the end of the comment following that one.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,575
@1,449,572 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
So you're self-criticism is that I'm so hopeless I wasn't worth the time and you're flawed for giving me time?
Lol.
To prove you're not a narcisist you say that I'm bad and you're extraordinarily generous.
I do think this will help the readers understand who's narcisistic.😂
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
So you're self-criticism is that I'm so hopeless I wasn't worth the time and you're flawed for giving me time?
Lol.
To prove you're not a narcisist you say that I'm bad and you're extraordinarily generous.
I do think this will help the readers understand who's narcisistic.😂
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,576
@previous (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
Yeah, that’s a genuine self criticism. It was stupid of me to waste my time talking to you when you’re clearly someone who can’t improve.
Yeah, that’s a genuine self criticism. It was stupid of me to waste my time talking to you when you’re clearly someone who can’t improve.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,578
@1,449,575 (Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg)
> I do think this will help the readers understand who's narcisistic.😂
Keep in mind I’m 50% of the readers.
> I do think this will help the readers understand who's narcisistic.😂
Keep in mind I’m 50% of the readers.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 17 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,579
Narcissist.
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 18 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,580
@1,449,576 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Your example of self criticism is just another attack on me, while talking about how much of a saint you are.
Empathize! How would a third person see this??
Your example of self criticism is just another attack on me, while talking about how much of a saint you are.
Empathize! How would a third person see this??
(Edited 52 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,581
Eh, who am I kidding? You’re mentally retarded so you won’t understand what I just said. I’m saying you and I are the only people who will ever actually care about this argument.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 29 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,582
Mr. Black Bollocks !wo2FnZxBXg (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,583
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 28 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,584
You do like your imaginary friend who agrees with you a lot though. Most people don’t say that out loud because they have self awareness about how silly it is that they argue with a voice inside their own head. The voice inside your head agrees with you, wow. Bet you can guess what the voice inside mine is doing, agreeing with me. Wow. You’re fucking retarded.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,585
Anyway, I hope someday they invent some kind of brain surgery for you. They probably won’t, it’s genetic, so you’re probably screwed until you die because of your brain defect that’s causing your narcissistic behavior.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 28 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,586
What a shame it is that evil actually exists…
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,587
The one part of religion you’d hope wasn’t true, damn. (Literally).