Item 1: Pope Francis attacks wealth-holders and calls for the redistribution of (other people’s, natch) wealth to the poor.
Hypocritical Element: The Vatican’s holdings are worth tens of billions; and there is no discussion of liquidating them for distribution to the poor.
Item 2: The Pope says that Weapons manufacturers can’t call themselves Christians.
Hypocritical Element: Not only is the Pope protected by paramiliaries armed with firearms, but the Vatican Bank is a major shareholder in Pietro Baretta Arms.
Item 3: In issuing an encyclical calling for the faithful to embrace the dogma of Climate Change and support the expansion of Government power and the diminishing of individual rights in order to fight it, the pope said, “I would like to enter a dialogue with all people about our common home.”
Hypocritical element: “All People” does not include climate change skeptics, who were excluded from participating in the encyclical.
You begin to see why this Pope is unusually popular on the Progressive Left. And watching the party that has always insisted that religion had no business in government, the same progressives who have been slamming the Roman Catholic church for decades, suddenly cheering as the Pope endorses their policy prescriptions is rich indeed.
The Vatican is vile.
I mean, for being a bunch of kiddie fiddlers who cover for each other from the top to the very bottom for centuries.
But, if you want to take the Pope to task for being a hypocrite about wealth and weapons (which he is), just because a portion of liberals have turned on a dime for political expediency (which they have) so be it.
: Priorities :
CrayCray, a child is 100 times more likely to be molested by an employee of the public schools system than a Catholic Priest, but you and the left direct none of your vitriol at schoolteachers.
Curious, that.
That was the first time I ever heard that.
That’s actually very frightening.
I actually did a little reading after I read your comment. It seems that a woman named Charol Shakeshaft conducted a great deal of the research on this subject. The media doesn’t seem to be interested. That makes sense, though, because the teacher’s union, and schools are generally made up of liberals.
Were we truly expecting any different political behavior from a South American Pope? He lives up to expectations.
Children are also exponentially more likely to be molested by friends and neighbors. None of that excuses the Church from actively covering it up and trying to keep the perpetrators from facing the legal consequences of their actions.
As a Catholic, I have refused to donate a red cent to the Church for years because of the handling of the abuse scandal and the horrible way they treat the nuns, and this hypocrisy about wealth is just another reason.
But I welcome Francis’ change in, well, “tone” I guess is the best word. As I read somewhere else: “Pope John Paul II reminded us of what believe. Pope Benedict wanted to teach us why we believe it. And Pope Francis is trying to teach us how to live it.”
He ain’t perfect, but he’s an improvement over Benedict. Of course, I kind of expected that of a Jesuit.
How about preaching the Gospel?
The Pope seems unfamiliar with the Lord’s teachings. “The poor will always be among you,” He said. Quite a shrewd judge of human nature, that Jesus. I also recall a time when He was a bit miffed at certain behaviour in the Temple, ARMED HIMSELF, and went to work.
I think this Pope gets a lot of bad advice. Only the Choom Gang buys global warming any more.
He’s just Evita Peron in drag.
Jesus and the Apostles lived in poverty. But the Pope’s hypocrisy is appealing to limousine liberals. The kind of people who live in penthouses on Park Avenue, or in mansions in Beverly Hills, and who expect a middle class worker to feel guilty about being able to afford to pay the rent on his one-bedroom apartment.
Hey everybody. Just wanted to stop in and give you guys a heads-up.
I am through with Christianity completely and conservatism as it is practiced by the majority of “conservatives” in America. Some very serious and traumatic revelations and betrayals by people close to me have really left me without any conviction or interest in either. So I think it’s as good a time as any to burn the remnants of my religious and political bridges and speak my mind on a couple issues that I’ve kept silent on.
I shall be seeking faiths and politics that are not bound and determined to bow and scrape to Marxists.
As it stands, Christianity will be syncretized with South American and African tribal faiths and turned into an unrecognizable mockery of itself. Meanwhile, its traditional European adherents will die or depart as churches fill with Blacks and Latinos, and their ministers and priests begin to parrot the race-grievance tripe of social justice morons.
American conservatism will continue its slow, humiliating defeat. When is the last time you heard a conservative make and observation like, “Women are physically weaker than men, and allowing them into combat training is a waste of time and resources”? How about, “Homosexual men are barred from donating blood because they make a ludicrously disproportionate percentage of VD infections, and the amount of money that would need to be spent on testing their blood makes it impractical”? Or, here’s the kicker, “The average Black IQ is 15 points lower than the average White IQ, which means that 50% of the Black population is stupider than 80% of the white population”? No conservative would ever dare say that because you are terrified of being called a misogynist, or a homophobe, or a racist. And this is why you will fail.
You cannot win on your present course. Your only option is to realize that the game is unwinnable and forfeit, and then watch as the Marxists proceed to immolate themselves. Then, and maybe then, you can have the society you seek.
I bid you all farewell.
I’m not Catholic and generally don’t give two hoots what the Pope says but it is annoying how often the Pole says something liberals like that opinion is the. Ascribed to Christiand not just Catholics.
As for child molestation-two reasons the church gets more attention are:
The church is one huge organization with deep pockets and is easy to sue.
And two-the left who cares about child molestation only when it involves conservatives and especially religious conser area get to cry “hypocrite!”
This guy is Obama in a cassock.
At least Pope Francis isn’t caving in on the sinfulness of homosexual acts, abortion, contraceptives, and so forth.
Also, the liberals hate him for getting too bossy about the LCWR, which is the organization of American nuns trying to liberalize the Church in the States.
As a Catholic I was disappointed that he was chosen over the papabile I was hoping for, but I’m not so sure how he can be expected to liquidate the Vatican’s alleged wealth. Besides, there’s no way that Italy (a separate country) is going to let Vatican art and architecture get sold off for cash for the poor. Also, it’s ridiculous to continue to accept that the papacy could have done anything to stop child abuse when it was the responsibility of the local bishops.
A lot of what the Pope says is being misinterpreted by the media (which is largely left wing or leans toward that wat). They’re only hearing what they want to hear from the Pope.
Sean L, you betray your ignorance of Christianity if you think it is predisposed towards Marxism, really Hegelism, in any of its forms.
It is a religion premised upon the importance of the individual. How often is the phrase “God loves you” repeated? That is the central point of the whole faith: the very personal, very intimate, and very individual relationship between God and Man.
Time will prove, if you are correct that the world is fixed in its regression, that Christianity will bring human achievement to the fore once again. It may be decades to centuries for the shift to happen, but it will not come from the Stoics, it will not come from the Hedonists or the Idealists. It will come from the institution that is forced, by the very ink on which it is based, to acknowledge the supreme importance of the individual.
I suggest you read some of the nonfiction of CS Lewis, or Karl Popper, or others like them. The Problem of Pain is good, Mere Christianity is good, The Open Society and Its Enemies is good, of course you could just read the Bible too…
You insistence on believing what other people tell you about a certain subject does not imply a high degree of actuated intelligence. Do some research of your own first, then talk about how bad something is. Otherwise, you are committing the same crime as those Marxists, really Hegelists, whom you seem to deplore.
Ah, now comes the Godtard comments.
Not that I do not appreciate the Let It Burn or Make It Burn groups, I am unsure which of the two to endorse. The passivity of the LIBs appeals to my more observational tendencies, and it is easier. However, the MIBs do have that fire in their bellies, which is, for some reason, incredibly appealing.
Sean L.:
I am deeply troubled that you’ve apparently given up; I’ve felt like that at times, too. Please reconsider. You’re far too bright for us to lose.
@ ChthulhuDreaming: Christianity in its original form may not have been Marxist, but you cannot deny that the elevation of the poor to special moral status and the claim of no distiction between sex, ethnicity, and economic standing have echoes in the social Marxist ideology espoused by so many politicians today. See also the Church’s advocacy of immigration of Third Worlders who are usually hostile to Western Civilization into Western countries. That is a policy that I cannot support from a political or moral viewpoint.
Fundamentally however, my disillusionment with Christianity comes from a morally contemptible string of actions on the part of somebody very close to me, who raised me in the Christian tradition. So disgusted am I with him that I want to be nothing like him anymore- and this extends to the faith that he foisted upon me at birth and demanded I follow, despite his own inability to follow his own religion. If you want to continue to worship Jesus of Nazareth, go ahead. But answer me this: if your religion is doing so well, then why are young folk fleeing from it in droves?
You’re an idiot. You single out behaviors, not a disposition. Don’t let the door hit you in the @ss on your way out.
@ Bastiat_Fan: I’m afraid that I’ve been on the receiving end of a moral betrayal by a family member. I cannot forgive him, and so I cannot call myself Christian anymore. Furthermore, I am sickened by the thought of sharing anything in common with him anymore. It’s bad enough that I share genetic material and a last name with him.
Furthermore: look at the haste with which “conservatives” moved to remove the Confederate flag from the public eye, and with which they now give credence to the Leftist nonsense about “subtle” racism and “micro-agressions,” which anybody with two functioning neurons knows is just the Marxist way of blaming Whites for Black people’s personal failings and of stopping White people from pointing out inconvenient truths about Blacks. American conservatism is doomed to be defeated and subsumed into cultural Marxism because you are too cowardly to actually make like a conservative and refuse to budge on issues. American “conservatives” aren’t actually conservatives, they are special-needs progressives.
I am not becoming a Leftist. Quite frankly, both sides suck, because both sides indulge in their own fantasies and self-delusions. The Left pretends that a man can turn himself into a woman. The Right pretends that everybody in the world wants to be just like America, and that a famously incompetent can be trusted with more money to the military, when that’s becoming as worthless as the rest of the behemoth. You get my point.
@CrayCrayPatriot: It’s the truth. That’s the reason why gay men are barred from giving blood in America. And if you would bother to look at the CDC statistics about STDs, you’ll see that men who engage in sexual acts with men make up the majority of infections. Targeting a behavior can be quite legitimate, unless you think alcoholics should be allowed to operate heavy machinery?
1. I do not contend that it is doing well, if we mean in raw percentage points.
2. Millennials, of which I am one, are not the brightest group of people ever to grace the planet. I deem it unreasonable to assert that they doing anything in droves is indicative of a good idea. Besides, we are in a time of intellectual suppression, I would not expect people to be nuanced in the art of distinction between similar things.
3. Why are you talking about the Church? I give no f*cks about what the Church does or says, it is a political organization based on abusing the most important document in history. My concern, in case it was not clear, is with the actual religion.
4. Ignoring your contention that the Church and the faith are the same thing, the entire idea that the poor are superior is an incomplete understanding of much of scripture both old and new testament. The poor are blessed because they are receiving FEEDBACK from God about their actions. Their continuance to do the stupid thing that makes them poor is an indication of their own stupidity. Furthermore, I would argue that attempting to elevate such persons by means other than example is directly contradictory to the purpose of suffering.
5. The idea Christianity is not allowed to defend itself by force is flat out ignorant. It has had to, several times in fact. Christianity in the US has enjoyed being the top dog for so long that it is probably a bit fat, and could use a good threat or two.
6. On a personal note, you are letting a man, a creature who is fundamentally flawed–not even going into religion here–people suck even by their own standards, determine your relationship with something, something potentially central to your own existence? What are you, ten? People screw up, Christianity acknowledges this and suggests methods of working past their screw ups. You are probably bludgeoned with the whole forgiveness thing by now, so I will let you in on a secret. First you condemn, then, after they have made an effort to put whatever it was that was so bad that they did behind them and you, you forgive them.
Your disillusionment with Christianity is your disillusionment with, I presume, your father. Hero worship is always doomed to failure, no matter how ordinary the hero.
It’s clear that many orgs, especially our own government, are manned by leaders that deserve pointed criticism from time to time. That said, it’s also important to remember the Catholic Church, quietly and discreetly, goes about the business of saving lives around the world on a daily basis.
(For the record, I’m not a Catholic.)
So…the left is suddenly interested in the Church’s positions! There are long-standing theological positions other than buying into anthropogenic climate change. Is the left lining up to support the Church on abortion and same-sex “holy” matrimony?
@ ChthulhuDreaming: My father has committed acts that have economically imperiled his own wife and children, has concealed it, and has put our security and our home of a moral monster without telling a soul. It’s just a coincidence that I have even an inkling of what he’s done. That’s not disillusionment with a hero figure (I’ve known for years that my father is no saint), that’s righteous moral outrage and total exasperation with a religion whose practitioners fail time and again to hold themselves to even basic standards of morality.
@ mike: No, they aren’t. Which is why Christian leaders are foolish to try and believe that they can have any common standing with the Left. I seem to recall Jesus warning about the perils of trying to serve two masters.
Excuse me for not being aware of the gravity of the situation. Have you brought your concerns to him? Clearly and calmly, I mean? Have you impressed upon him the level of your disappointment? Have you made it clear to him what you are going to do in light of this betrayal?
Thus far, to me, it appears as if you are running from the problem. While I have no skin in the game, and I do appreciate the need to vent, you are not taking the action necessary to fix the problem. Should you choose to cut all ties with him, that is your business. However, will you still think that in a year, five, or ten? What if, on the day of his interment, you finally realize what you have lost? On that day, you will only have yourself to blame.
Which is no different than today. Your dad done screwed up, big time, work through it with all the wisdom and patience you would show your own children. There is a big difference between preaching the gospel, and practicing it. You want more Christians to not be hypocritical dicks? Act like the way they claim they should.
Two observations:
First, the Vatican’s Swiss Guard is armed to the teeth:
http://www.guns.com/2014/04/13/guns-swiss-guard/
(This is actually an interesting article on the Swiss Guard)
Second – the Pope has also called on Europe to accommodate more refugees from Africa (of which there are, potentially, a billion). I’d be interested to see what would happen if the Italians, struggling mightily with the refugee crisis, dumped a couple of busloads of refugees fresh off the boat at the Vatican’s gates.
Re: Sean L… sure hate to see you go – your comments are always worth reading.
I, too, am pessimistic (John Derbyshire has observed that American conservatives are far too optimistic). It’s said that history repeats itself ad infinitum and I’m afraid that a new Dark Ages is in the cards.
This Pope is the Rev. Wright of the Catholic Church.
re: CthulhuDreaming
I’m Christian, but not Catholic. The Pope’s opinions (and, it’s important to note that he isn’t speaking ex cathedra) don’t mean very much to me. I just think it’s laughable that the left now want’s to pretend that they give a crap about the Church.
@ ChthulhuDreaming: I’ve tried to ask my father what the situation is. Each time I’ve been rebuffed with “Don’t worry about it, and don’t tell your mother.” I’ve tried tried to reach out, and each time I’ve failed.
if your religion is doing so well, then why are young folk fleeing from it in droves?
I don’t think Christianity is “doing well,” particularly the mainstream protestant denominations. I see a lot of people in their 20’s at my meetinghouse, but mine is not a “mainstream” denomination.
Given the social pressure and the success the progressive left has had stigmatizing Christianity, I am not the least surprised that people are reluctant to embrace. Proper Christianity demands that you care for others more than yourself and defer gratification; both of these are anathema to contemporary popular culture.
Sean, I’m sorry to hear you’re going through a rough time. I hope you don’t mind if I keep you in my prayers.
RE: Religion. I gave up on the ELCA a long time ago and wear my heresy with pride.
Sean, I’m can understand how this betrayal you’re experiencing is exposing you to intense feelings of anger and disgust, in the midst of which you find it almost impossible to separate your feelings towards your father with your feelings toward the faith he has professed.
But when you’re on a ship in the midst of a hurricane is not the time to cut your anchor. Christianity is about putting your trust in the Son of God, who did not throw his faith overboard when he was betrayed to the Romans by a very close friend and companion.
So I urge you to ride out the storm before you make any life-changing decisions about Christianity and can see the whole landscape rather than just your corner of hell on earth.
I’d also offer up these lyrics to the Michael Card song Why?
Sean:
You will be the subject of my rosary tonight. I hope that’s okay.
Sean-Indont know what has happened to make you lose faith but I want to say your faith or belief shouldn’t be tied up in what humans choose to do-human’s are imperfect and will fail you and let you down-even those who profess faith.
Your hope and trust should be in the Lord and His promises. only you know what is in your heart and mind right now-so I won’t say more but it breaks my heart that Tha actions of a person have made you lose faith. Don’t give somebody who has clearly failed you that much power.
“I don’t think Christianity is “doing well,” particularly the mainstream protestant denominations. I see a lot of people in their 20′s at my meetinghouse, but mine is not a “mainstream” denomination.”
It depends on the congregation, I guess. My Mainline congregation is booming.
@ Sean L- there actually is some hope GammerGate and Rabid Puppies are starting to take a bite out of leftists. http://voxday.blogspot.com/ covers both. If you enjoy schadenfreude at leftists expense you can get an all you can eat buffet there. Even if outnumbers its always been quality that counts which is why Detriot is Detriot this explains it well http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/10/one-hundred-heads.html
I will have to look it up but I remember a couple of months ago coverage of Pope Commi not wanting illegals coming into his homeland compared to how he wants to shit the 3rd world on the US and Europe.
Actually Christianity is doing VERY well…just not in Europe or the U.S. The Church is a global institution and is experiencing very robust growth in Africa, South America, and Asia.
Well, it is a bit late but if you see this, here it is.
In that case, there is little to be done other than clarifying your position on his behavior and taking his actions into future consideration. He is his own person, neither you nor God control him. Your relationship with God is really not my business, but you are allowing someone who I assume you do not respect prevent you from pursuing that relationship. Which, if you are of that persuasion, is the most important relationship possible.
If you are intent on blaming God for your father’s, and others’, shortcomings, remember that the power of choice necessitates that some will choose poorly. Life without choice is not life. I see no reason to decide something of such personal magnitude based upon the hypocrisy of an imperfect man.
Unrelated note: wow, people are, like, pleasant here. It is…odd.
Sean L>When you target gay men, you’re targeting a dIs position not a behavior.
Targeting a behavior means you weed out whores who have unprotected sex gay or straight.
They have you fill out surveys for a reason.
This boggles the mind. Are we hearing that being gay is a “disposition”? That it is a prevailing tendency or inclination?
Are we hearing that the prevailing tendency or inclination is not “behavior” among gay men who are gay by disposition? That “gay” is not defined by sex with the same sex? Or is there a category of gay “lite” which is attraction without follow through? Do tell.
If the CDC has statistical information that a disproportionate amount of diseased blood comes from donors who have a gay “disposition” what is the CDC to make of this information? Is the disproportion a result of genetics, disposition or behavior?
I think the blood donation ban was a good idea at the time, considering many people back in the 80s and 90s contracted AIDS via tainted blood supplies. However, medicine in the area of HIV/AIDS has considerably advanced, and there are numerous ways to detect “bad” blood before sending it out into the supply. Hence, I think the ban should be lifted for that reason.
Paul, the tests for checking blood are very expensive and not 100%.
Thank you to everybody who has offered to pray for me. It’s been comforting and I think it has helped screwed my head back on.
I am still quite angry with my father. I don’t think I’ll stop being angry with him, but I don’t think he did this out of malice. He’s a stubborn fool who often refuses help, but it’s not like he’s wasting the money on booze or hookers- at least, I don’t think he is. I think I’m still going to try and get some information out of him one more time. I think I would be in a more forgiving mood if he would just tell me what’s going on. I think the fact that the doesn’t trust me or seems unwilling to let me help my family is what stings me the most.
I think I’m going to go church hunting in earnest. Part of my frustration comes from experience with my family’s parish, which foots the bill for “corrupt Catholic parish,” and even my mother, devout Catholic that she is, hates going there. The parish council seems completely uninterested in growing parish membership or attracting young people, and more interested in making sure that church collections go towards funding their pet projects.
As a warning, I have not had an easy time finding a church that is, you know, any good. I have ranged from orthodox to protestant, and still I have not had any luck at all. Part of it, I think, is because I am picky. Anyway, good luck with the hunt, and be aware that it might be a long, long hunt.
Could not have said it better myself, Heliotrope.
Australia seems to do just fine with their blood donation process. It’s actually more streamlined than in the states. In Australia Gay men are allowed to donate provided they pass the screening process. There is a lengthy and in depth Questionnaire That is more comprehensive than in the states.
But continue clutching onto your myths. People who accept Most of the Bible as history tend to do that.
Pray tell which myth do I cling to? That gays are, generally, promiscuous in the extreme? That they are therefore a higher risk group? That it is therefore a reasonable move on the blood bank’s part to cut costs, thus reducing the cost of blood, by simply excluding that group? That people cannot lie on a questionnaire? That screening processes are perfectly accurate?
If you are going to suggest that gays would flood to blood donation centers, thus increasing supply and making blood cheaper, we are, at best, 5% of the population. Many of whom would be rejected due to the screening and questionnaire, provided honesty was a thing. All of those failed donations would be dumped out back, all that effort wasted, just to make a group of people who allow immature, irresponsible, and deplorable members of the population of those people to do representation feel good?
What does the Bible have to do with any of that? Or, are you one of those “atheists” who believes in the supremacy of science? A subject which, by its own admission, operates because it doubts everything, including the absence of an entity which can be neither proven nor disproven.
But back to the subject of the Pope…I’m Protestant. We haven’t trusted the Pope for over 500 years. 😉
As a former Catholic and educated by Jesuits, I am not surprised by Pope Francis’s announcements. The Jebbes as they are affectionately called, are huge socialists. Have been for many decades. They taught us all this social justice crappola back in the 1970s, when I was in high school. We had to do a senior service project helping those less fortunate than ourselves. It is not expanded to include all grades now.
The Jebbes just hate capitalism and espouse a socialistic point of view. I had so many debates in high school with the priests and lay teachers, who mainly went well to the left. And this was in a then conservative part of the country. No telling how many of them believe in Communism in the 2010s.
I meant to say now expanded to all grades.
Again, Australia just does fine allowing gay men who don’t have ample unprotected sex donate blood.
If you think the states is doing it better, so be it.
That doesn’t surprise me.
I expect Obama’s government to protect our blood supply as effectively as it protects our borders, the personnel files of our Government employees, and the health care of our veterans.
So … you’re kind of making my case for me … ?
No, he’s saying that the Obama administration’s efforts to change the standards for blood supply will be as successful in continuing to protect our blood supply as their efforts to protect our borders, government worker personnel files, and veteran health care. In other words, NOT.
He’s thus making the argument for maintaining the standards in place since before Obama that have been effective in protecting blood supply. And I suspect that Obama’s proposed changes are based on strictly political considerations, not on sound medical data, since so many other decisions by Obama and his devotees have been driven by political considerations rather than by science or truth.
Oh, okay.
However, my main point this whole time has been that blood banks targeting ill behaviors make sense. It works in Australia. Gay men can donate blood there. Anyone can. As long as they’re not in the skin trade, having unprotected sex, and/or sleeping around. That’s what screenings processes are for.
If it works there, there isn’t any reason why it can’t work in the United States, which, it appears, is going to allow some MSM to donate blood at the end of 2015.
But, some people insist in this thread that targeting the gays because they’re disproportionate in their ill behaviors is the best way to go. All it does is disenfranchise a segment of the population who don’t engage in risky behaviors.
I’ve always been responsible (unless you ask ND20, who insists I’m a bareback slut who spreads disease and endorses kiddie fiddlers, when he’s not actually calling me one), and yet wasn’t allowed to partake in what I thought was my civic duty, all because of some archaic unreviewed screening system that may have worked in the early 1980s, but had no net “positive” gain in the late 1990s.
That’s because, CrayCray, the track record of gay bigots such as yourself is appalling.
Now, CrayCray, give us one good reason why bigots like yourself who deliberately lied in order to give tainted blood and bragged about it should ever be trusted.
You didn’t tell the truth before, and you and your bigot friends like rusty and littlelettermike screamed that lying so that you could force your infected blood into the system was some kind of noble cause that every gay should be allowed to do.
Why? Again, Craig nailed you.
Amusingly, isn’t the Pope saying Christ wasn’t Catholic? I mean he did attack people in the Temple…
Actually, Jesus was Jewish. The first bishop of Rome took office later, sometime after Jesus’ death and resurrection. 🙂
I don’t endorse lying especially when it comes to lives being threatened. And I condemn anyone who supports lying on the blood screening process for donation.
That’s why I stopped donating blood in my 20s. Once you had anal sex anytime after 1977, you were not ever allowed to give.
So I stopped. And I’ve been using my voice to voice the discriminatory nature of American blood donation ever since.
How do you use your voice, Nd20, when you’re not anonymously lumping strangers together with completely different life philosophies?
*btw, Nd20, your time would be used more wisely tending to that emotional wreckage inside of you that drives you to make up lies behind the guise of Ms. Rita Beads.
And Rusty is a friend of mine and not a bigot.
Nope, CrayCray.
You know who the liars and emotional wrecks were?
These people.
Did you and bigot rusty scream at them for lying?
Did you and bigot rusty scream at them for endangering lives?
No. You screamed at the people who set up processes to STOP them from lying and endangering lives.
Your selfishness and narcissistic hate knows absolutely no bounds. You and the sick bigot rusty are so emotionally immature and twisted that you would deliberately cover up giving tainted blood in the name of gay tribalism.
Your desire to hide behind your computer and disparage others has no bounds.
Go see a shrink. Or pray more. Or do something nice.
Like donate blood …
Oh wait …
LMAO.
Do you need a reminder of what your heroes and the people you shrieked we all should emulate and kiss the feet of did, CrayCray?
Since you and your bigot bud rusty make heroes of people who deliberately lied and gave tainted blood so they would endanger the lives of others, CrayCray, you have no moral standing here. You merely reveal yourself as the worst kind of malicious liar and vile selfish creature, and you and your fellow “heroes” deserve disparagement for sickening and killing thousands of innocent people.
OK guys, this is getting out of hand.
ND30, I agree with you on all points, but personal attacks are ineffective. They alienate both the opponent and the observers. It is our job, as the adults in the world, to show by word and deed the appropriate course of action. This is not to suggest that noble defeatism is a good thing, but to stress the need to approach various strategies coolly. There will come a time when we will need as many on our side as possible.
CCP, same deal with personal attacks. However, you have yet to provide even a smidgen of readily verifiable information to support your premise. In your Australia example, do you have data on how many gays do donate, and of them how much blood is gathered that is not unusable? It may very well be that Australia is better off, but you have yet to overcome previously held notions on our part concerning the level of responsibility in the gay community at large with actual evidence. The burden of proof is on you, not the person with whom you are debating. Historically, gays gave had serious problems with STDs and the like, it is up to you to prove to us, and the blood banks, that gay people are generally responsible enough to make repealing that policy cost effective. Something that should be simple to do, we are not talking about some esoteric subject: this can and will have a direct impact on people’s lives, caution is, I think, a good idea.
You bring up a good point, Cthul. However, in order to effectively examine the matter, we would need to compare data from the U.S. against Australia (as well as Japan and South Africa, for that matter), as far as blood that is thrown out. It would be interesting to know if there is a large or minuscule margin when looking at the before/after when adding MSM to the equation. Australia started opening up blood donation to non-promiscuous, responsible MSM three years ago after successful results in Japan and South Africa. South Africa has allowed gay men to donate blood for almost a decade, as long as they have been celibate for six months. Last year, they amended their rules to allow anyone to donate blood as long as they’ve been celibate or in a monogamous relationship for six months.
If the amount of tainted blood thrown out isn’t a large burden, as you’re suggesting, it’s not worth disenfranchising the bulk of a certain group of people who are responsible, want to contribute to their society, and be part of it like any other average person. Something tells me that South Africa has very little to gain as far as lying about statistics when it comes to blood waste, as I imagined they’ve been consulted by the the FDA, as well as Japan, and Australia, before the U.S. decided to go forward with allowing gay men to donate blood.
But, even if gay men are disproportionate in their sexual activity and propensity to catching venereal diseases, you’re first looking at a subset that comprises roughly 2 – 3% of the U.S. population (MSM). Then, you’re looking at a fraction of that subset (MSM who have unprotected sex and/or are promiscuous). After that, you’re looking at a fraction of a fraction of a subset (MSM who are 1) irresponsible sexually, 2) actively donating blood, and 3) lying). Now, compare that to heterosexuals (90% of the population) and apply the same qualifiers, and I ask you where the threat exactly is. Just playing the numbers, I’m confused by how big of a waste issue you really thing this is when adding gay men to the equation. Are you arguing that there are more promiscuous, irresponsible liars within gay men (2 – 3% of the population) then there are within the heterosexual community (90%)?
Just how many people are we talking about here? And what is it worth the hundreds of thousands of gay men who are:
1) Responsible sexually (monogamous, celibate, etc)
2) Just wanting to be treated like an average citizen who wants to do his civic duty.
I’ve been celibate for years, yet I can’t donate blood in the U.S. because I’ve had protected sex with three different people years ago. I donated blood regularly as a teen, because I was very integrated in my community and it was one of the many things I did to contribute, so it was very important to me. I was able to do so up until my early 20s. So, it pleases me that at the end of this year, the FDA will have lifted the ban and allow people like myself to finally donate again after decades of not being able to do so.
Here are some of the sample questions to donate blood in Australia out of a total of fifty-six questions. It’s very thorough. This is only a fraction of what you have to fill out:
In the American survey, there are forty-eight questions, including:
Yet, none of those questions matter if you’re an MSM once you get down to this:
If you tick “no” … bu-bye!
*If mean, if you tick “yes” .. bu-bye!
And, as far as those gay men who promoted ticking “no” even though it’s a lie, I do not condone that behavior and never will.
Also consider that the donation of blood lowers the incidence of iron toxicity. Not only are healthy donors giving something of themselves, they are getting something in return.
Oh, hardly, CthulhuDreaming. Bullying works. Bigot gays like CrayCray and his perverted ilk are fascists who threaten businesses with arson, mock Christianity and rant on TV about killing all Republicans, and not a bit of consequence occurs.
But they cower in the face of Islam, with even their messiah Obama screaming that “the future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet” and their owner Hillary groveling before Muslims, and why?
Because Muslims bully back, and harder. And that is the lesson here. You cannot reason with leftists. You can, however, teach them that anything they do to you will be repaid doubly, and that keeps them in check.
The prerogatives for gentle rule are emotional intelligence and self-control, and leftists have neither. They are selfish and greedy children who will say and do anything to get their way. I have no particular interest in forcing them to do things my way, but I have a strong interest in making sure they leave me alone in the process.
And now for CrayCray’s hilarious attempts to spin.
Yes.
After all, wouldn’t the HIV rate, just to use an example, be proportionately the same between heterosexuals and homosexuals if there were no difference?
Instead, what we find:
And:
Amazing how that works.
Not to mention, as I have previously, the fact that LGBT culture and LGBT leadership openly endorsed and supported lying about tainted blood and allowing tainted blood to enter the supply, sickening and killing thousands of people.
Hence, no reason to treat it as anything other than hazardous and excessively dangerous.
My point ND30, is that you risk alienating people like me. People who would ordinarily jump to your defense. Call it shallow and stupid from a game theory perspective, but a resort to ad hominem implies that you are unable to make a good argument, therefore, who concerned with the quality of his companions would stoop to that level? Do not take that as an assault, you do make good arguments, some of which need to be personal to be made, but doing so excessively and unnecessarily sets off red flags. I realize that, for the most part, lefties gonna left, but it is for their our sake that I bother explaining it to them.
Think of it like a game with three people. One is lefty, one is righty, one is neutral. Neutral does not really care about X, but both lefty and righty do at counterpoints. Neutral, being neutral, prefers civility. So, when lefty and righty constantly bash each other over the head with words, neutral does not really care. However, once the fist fighting starts, who does neutral support by deed or encouragement? The one who tried to be civil as long as possible, or the one who was always berating the other’s intelligence etc.? The goal is to win neutrals, and maybe even a few lefties. I see no reason not to reduce their odds of victory in a scuffle wherever possible. Does that explain it?
CCP, did you miss the part where you need to do that research? You have demonstrated why it is possible that your position is correct, now you need to evidence that possibility’s factual basis. That is all I ask. Compile the data documenting how caution is not necessary in this case. Until then, I am going to err on the side of caution.
Strange how the discussion moved from the Pope’s encyclical to blood donor criteria. And concurrently how the tone completely changed.
That’s a lovely concept, Cthulhu.
And if it worked, Mitt Romney would be President today.
But the simple fact is that it does not. And that is because, frankly put, human nature rationalizes what is right with what is popular — or, as Osama bin Laden put it, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse.”
Perfectly logical. After all, you may side with the person who resisted throwing the first punch, but are you actually going to take the step and get into the fight yourself?
No.
And then when the person who throws the most punches wins, even if it’s fighting dirty, are you THEN going to fight?
No.
This is how the Nazis took over Germany. People deplored their tactics, but generally just sat around and waited for someone else to do something — and then slowly realized it was better to just go along to get along.
I don’t have the data on how much blood is thrown out in the U.S., Australia, or anywhere else, so it makes it difficult for me to analyze and argue Australia or anywhere else throws out a disproportionate more blood.
I realize you’re saying that the burden is on me to make an argument to why it needs to be changed. However, South Africa has been doing this for 9 years (at least allowing gay men who have been celibate for six months). I would like to think that the FDA consulted SANBS, NBA, etc. I do see that Australia takes blood waste seriously, however.
Again, I acquiesce that restrictions were necessary in the early 1980s, when HIV/AIDS first popped up as major threat and mystery. Thirty-four years later, a great deal more has been learned about:
1) Detecting the disease
2) Preventing the disease
3) Managing the disease
There’s more information out there, and the screening process is used to weed out the potential waste. I wish I had access to the raw data, however. I think it would be very interesting to analyze year by year and country by country as far as blood that is tainted and needs to be thrown out verses blood that is usable.
I respect your argument on the side of caution. I’d like to think that those in charge have taken an approach that I imagined they have. Unfortunately, I have no idea if this has happened. But, for them to finally ease the restrictions after decades seems like a choice that wouldn’t be endeavored lightly.
And, thank you for calling me out earlier. Sometimes, the personal attacks (being called a pedophile, slut, disease-spreader … now I’ve recently been called an Anti-semite who applauds the death of Israeli Jews) gets to be too much and I sink to their level. I used to use my actual name in my handle on here and have since stopped, because some posters on here are allowed free range to conduct themselves in derogatory way and to do so anonymously.
Not really, CrayCray; you never have left the level of personal attacks. You simply pretend they don’t happen and act injured when people point them out.
I think the word we’re looking for here is “sociopath”.
Again, thank you Cthul for calling me out. I’ll do my best to argue my points without resorting to personal attacks. Although, there is only so much a man can take before he has to start dishing it back to others.
ND30, why are you so determined to win an enemy? Look at 79 then 80.
In 79, CCP does the following:
He admits that caution was once necessary.
He admits that we, here, do not have the data to make a good decision.
He clearly articulates the defense of his position.
This is effectively a reversal from enflamed political warrior, to rational commentator.
In 80, you do the following:
You reject what is objectively obvious just a few pixels above.
You ungraciously continue to point out past wrong doings.
You also fail to address his defense of his position.
This is a continuation of your own bullying tactics. Which have, at least here, failed. Completely, as I have described above. Besides, are you so small a man to be unable to forgive and forget? Can you not look at what a man will do as more important than what he has done? Are you so bitter that you would bite an ideological ally who offers a criticism?
CCP, we are all human. We are all fallible. I do not, and cannot, maintain perfection in this quarter myself. Instead, the goal is to be better today than yesterday. I urge you, when it gets bad, to remember this kerfuffle. Remember that when it would have been easy for me to smite you with the holy sword of self righteousness, I did not. In so doing, have I not made it easier for me to win this debate, by picking the battlefield–data and caution? Besides, this is the internet. Time to think is no short supply.
As to the defense of your position, I am an anarcho-libertarian. Anything any branch of the government does is suspect. Ideally, the rules would be up to several blood collection agencies. Competition would deal with the rest. If there really was a good reason to ban gay blood donations, such as a higher incidence of disease, one of the blood collection agencies would and make lots of the moneyz. If not, that agency would go out of business.
As we are forced to operate with a monopoly, and we therefore have no choice with whom we do business, caution wins out. I do not want even the slightest possibility of anything going wrong with my blood transfusions. Therefore, if banning some specific group made sense historically, and there is no compelling nonpartisan empirical evidence to suggest that repealing the ban makes sense now, then unbanning that group is equivalent to introducing a possibility of serious repercussions and there is no defense for jeopardizing my, and others’, life. Especially for political reasons.
The FDA, by mandating certain baselines, essentially makes its policy the policy of all blood collection agencies. Whether or not doing so is a good thing is a matter for elsewhere. Suffice it to say that government forms monopolies in essence.
Fair enough.
For a very simple reason, CthulhuDreaming.
You have been here for a few weeks, and you are not familiar with CrayCray’s methods.
I have commented here since 2004, and have seen “CrayCray” perform the same manipulative maneuvers on trusting, good-hearted, well-meaning conservatives and commenters not once, not twice, but numerous times — including the moderators — and under multiple names.
And along the way, what he has made obvious is that he will say and do anything for power, including viciously turning on those who he flattered in person and milked for all manner of personal information on others, abusing their trust.
Now, you may choose to believe that, or not. You may also choose to alter your behavior, or not. I agree with you in theory; however, theory is tempered by wisdom and experience, and thus I choose to act as I do.
What exactly are these manipulative maneuvers?
And, again, I’ve always been forthcoming about the changing of my handles, and never tried to deceive anyone into thinking I was anyone else (and will always admit to them). The whole reason they were changed were because of the lies you ascribed to my name, and the fact that you were allowed to get away it on here. I’m not going to have such ridiculous posts from you be associated with my name or blog, especially during a job search, when everyone is googled now. I simply chose more anonymous handles until finally I settled on one that bears no trace of my name or blog. Just as you choose to post anonymously, so now I do as well.
Believe me, whatever personal information has been shared with me has been unsolicited. In fact, I’d rather not know and unsee the things I’ve seen.
But, feel free to justify/rationalize the false, nasty things you’ve said about me in the past.
ND30, it is true that I am really unfamiliar with this community. It is also true that this all may be some grand conspiracy to fool me into joining CCP and not you in future discussions. It is also quite possible that he is a power hungry nut job.
Is it also possible that as crazy, as silly, as hopelessly inane as the left is, I am more stubborn? You do me a disservice by assuming that I shall grow weary of the battles I may have carved out for myself, I shall not. I enjoy bludgeoning my forehead against walls, metaphorically-of course.
Call me a fool if it pleases you, but I will never cease believing in people’s reason. Do you know why? It is simple really. If I am incapable of extending this minor courtesy to my fellows, then I have no place in a free society. For I will have proven that I am incapable of tolerating differences from my position. I may have my fair share of hubris, but I am not so arrogant as to preclude the possibility of being wrong.
Wait, that is the sin of the left! Odd, that.
We two may be unable to see eye to eye on this issue with mere discussion. However, I would appreciate it if you did not try to cow me with your bullying tactics. Were we face to face, such might be more impressive. I am not the most fearsome figure, physically, and I have enough dislike for discomfort to attempt to run in any way possible. But here, we have the mask of the internet. All we have are words. If it bothers you that I carry the torch I do, try to disprove the theory. All I have seen on that point is the claim that you have superior wisdom and experience, prove it to me. Prove to me that your choices are born out of wisdom and not defeat, that I need your protection-and not the other way around. I do not think that is too terribly much.
It is my hope that the two of us could become good friends over the course of time. We do not disagree on the conclusions of political discourse too much, we enjoy trashing people who disagree with us-though in different ways, we both seek a port in the storm of life. But the respect of friendship, even in its oddly vaporous form on the internet, goes both ways. I have tried to extend it. If I have failed egregiously, please tell me how. I cannot improve otherwise.
Also, he ceded the argument to me in 83. So, there is that.
Quite true.
Quite possibly. But this is not a bad reality show where one must form and follow alliances; this is a comments section of a blog. Who you “join” isn’t terribly relevant. If you make sense, who your friends are doesn’t really matter.
Absolutely 🙂
Which is all perfectly fine, and well within your prerogative.
Sorry, but put bluntly, I could frankly care less what you think. I laid out the facts as I saw them, stated my opinion, and, as I made clear, it was your choice to believe, alter your behavior, or not.
Sure, I like having people agree with me. But if you don’t, that’s your prerogative, and it certainly doesn’t make you or me wrong or right.
As for friendship, fine, whatever. Just realize that I don’t blow sunshine up friends’ asses when they’re wrong, and I’m the first to throw a punch for them when they’re right.
1. Facts as you see them do not interest me; facts as they are do.
2. The point of discussion is to approach Truth, whatever it may be.
3. Sunshine? You realize I did win the debate, right?
So to put it in explicit form:
CCP was wrong. I got him to admit that my position was correct. My position precludes his own. Ergo, he admits he was wrong.
Where in this process was the sunshine?
Cthul >> you so schooled me.
You better believe though I wish I had some data to come back at you with!
😉
But you actually taught me something (not that was your intention) on here. Wish debates were conducted more in your style. I hope you stick around.
Then we can get into causation, correlation, confirmation, outliers, exclusion of the mean, bell curves, statistical manipulation, and bias issues. Now I am just being difficult.
Manners exist for this very reason. They facilitate effective debates which, as noted elsewhere, really ought to increase everybody’s intelligence a little.
As for sticking around, I may or may not. However, I am done with this specific thread. I am much too lazy to be constantly scrolling to the bottom of the world just to click on a link which necessitates an equivalent saga.