Philadelphia Archbishop: “There Is No Such Thing as an ‘LGBTQ Catholic'”

[phands]

Still no source.

Possibly, wherever he got the numbers does not add his gay-bashing spin on it, OR soecifically discounts his conclusions.

Or, teah there is no source.

Of course there's no source - he's a xtian. No need for facts, logic or truth.

 

[atrib]

25 to 40 percent of men (or as phands calls them, True Christian priests) attracted to children prefer boys....preferably gay boys. Proud little gay boys who have "come out" thanks to the urging of adult propaganda and who aren't afraid to express their sexuality.

*psychic vomit*

I am not sending you a private message to tell you I think you are full of shit; I am telling you that to your face in the public forum. I think you are full of shit.

 

[Lion IRC]

Of all abortions, about 75% are "god abortions" aka "spontaneous abortions"

OK you got me.
I will amend my position on abortion. I'm now willing to agree that only involuntary abortions should only be legal.

That's a 75% concession on my part. Now you compromise and ban the other 25%

I tell you what. I'll even agree to legalise abortion in the case of rape - the pro-abortion lobby's main appeal to emotion. See how reasonable I am?

Now, let's see how reasonable you are. How many unborn babies are you willing to spare from the scalpel? What types of abortion are YOU willing to agree should be banned.

Quid pro quo Clarice

 

[Lion IRC]

Out of 6,875 survivors of child sex abuse by male pedophiles, 64.3% of the victims were boys. The stats don't lie.

 

[Rhea]

Of all abortions, about 75% are "god abortions" aka "spontaneous abortions"

OK you got me.
I will amend my position on abortion. I'm now willing to agree that only involuntary abortions should only be legal.

That's a 75% concession on my part. Now you compromise and ban the other 25%

I tell you what. I'll even agree to legalise abortion in the case of rape - the pro-abortion lobby's main appeal to emotion. See how reasonable I am?

Now, let's see how reasonable you are. How many unborn babies are you willing to spare from the scalpel? What types of abortion are YOU willing to agree should be banned.

Quid pro quo Clarice

That's stupid.
You are "willing" to make my body's normal functions legal.
That's not a chip that's on the table, Clarice.
Stop trying to put your bible in my vagina. My bodily functions are legal and will always be.

And I'll be reasonable: No person, at any time, can be forced to donate blood or organ to another person against their will. Even if the actions of the proposed donor are the reason the recipient needs the donation.

Not even mine owners who caused men to need lung transplants - you can't just tie him up and make him donate a lung.
Not even drunk drivers who have the blood type needed by the person they hit - you can't just tie him up and make him donate blood.
You can't force a man to donate his eyes to someone who walked by his lawnmower and got hit by rocks.
I can't force you to undergo a skin donation, even though you're the one who kept taking your buddy fishing and led to his melanoma.
In fact we all agree that there are NO circumstances under which a man can be forced to donate any part of his body. He has a right to complete bodily autonomy as a citizen.

And not even a woman, who becomes pregnant, can be forced to donate her body to another against her will. I realize you don't think highly of women, and you think they lose their rights when they get pregnant, and they are only good as vessels for other humans anyway, and they aren't full citizens, but you're flat out wrong about saying you have any right to tie her down and force her to donate her blood and organs against her will. Not ever.

It turns out women are citizens with full rights. And that includes complete bodily autonomy, for any reason they want.

 

[Lion IRC]

A woman holding a baby in her arms has this so-called bodily autonomy?
She can do whatever she wants with her own arms?
Womb/arms/womb....


Any resemblance between this woman and Latoya Jackson is purely coincidental

 

[bilby]

Out of 6,875 survivors of child sex abuse by male pedophiles, 64.3% of the victims were boys. The stats don't lie.

Your repeated claim that these unsourced and unsupported figures you are presenting are "The stats", is tantamount to a lie.

Certainly, no reasonable person would believe your claim here to be true.

 

[Rhea]

A woman holding a baby in her arms has this so-called bodily autonomy?
She can do whatever she wants with her own arms?
Womb/arms/womb....

View attachment 18246
Any resemblance between this woman and Latoya Jackson is purely coincidental

No, don’t be stupid. She is not donating any blood or organ. You know this. She can be made to put the baby down. Don’t pretend you are stupid.

 

[atrib]

Out of 6,875 survivors of child sex abuse by male pedophiles, 64.3% of the victims were boys. The stats don't lie.

Your repeated claim that these unsourced and unsupported figures you are presenting are "The stats", is tantamount to a lie.

Certainly, no reasonable person would believe your claim here to be true.

The statistics would support what you are saying. A recent study showed that of all the self-identified Christians who participate in online discussions on various popular topics, a full 82.4% lie habitually, another 11.1% percent lie occasionally, and only 0.14% never lie. The study indicated that self-identified nonbelievers (atheists, agnostics, or not identifying with any religious order), lie only about 1.1% of the time.

The same study also indicated that 72.3% of the self-identified Christian users browse gay porn websites either regularly (once a week or more - 56.7%) or occasionally (once every month - 15.6%).

I am getting the data from the same source as LIRC.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What counts as gay porn? Does that only mean when I'm watching two dudes, or do all the Asian lesbian videos count as well?

 

[ruby sparks]

What counts as gay porn? Does that only mean when I'm watching two dudes, or do all the Asian lesbian videos count as well?

Yes.

Personally, my favourite gay porn involves watching a gay man and a lesbian woman get it on.

 

[Rhea]

Out of 6,875 survivors of child sex abuse by male pedophiles, 64.3% of the victims were boys. The stats don't lie.

Your repeated claim that these unsourced and unsupported figures you are presenting are "The stats", is tantamount to a lie.

Certainly, no reasonable person would believe your claim here to be true.

I find it fascinating that Lion is comfortable claiming “stats” without ever saying where they are from and how they were acquired. It all seems so Catholic to not only believe everything you hear, but also having zero curiosity about the source material. I mean ZERO. Catholicism is famous among Christians for having the fewest memebers who even bother to read the bible, preferring someoe else to read it for them and produce sermons that are believed without curiosity, but it’s still interesting to see such a pristine example of it.

Here in this thread we watch Lion absolutely uncaring about whether his statements have any basis in fact and him assuming we won’t really care if he doesn’t follow up on questions posed He doesn’t even answer direct questions seeking the data source; one that, history shows, TFT members are totally willing to review for him. He doesn’t even answer. It’s like questions about primary sources are nothing more than a Peanutsian Wua-wua-wua to him. I geuinely wonder if he even really knows what a “stat” is? Fascinating example of Catholicism. They’ll believe anything without proof and they think everyone else will, too.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What counts as gay porn? Does that only mean when I'm watching two dudes, or do all the Asian lesbian videos count as well?

Yes.

Personally, my favourite gay porn involves watching a gay man and a lesbian woman get it on.

That needs to be specified, then. The whole thing about Christians being the main consumer of gay pornography is the allusion that they are closet homosexuals in direct contradiction to their expressed public dislike of it.

If they’re just watching lesbian porn, they’re the same as all other straight men.

 

[Lion IRC]

"86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual".

 

[bilby]

"86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual".

"86 percent of Lion's posts are total garbage".

See, it's in quotation marks, so it must be The Stats^TM.

 

[skepticalbip]

What counts as gay porn? Does that only mean when I'm watching two dudes, or do all the Asian lesbian videos count as well?

Yes.

Personally, my favourite gay porn involves watching a gay man and a lesbian woman get it on.

I've considered describing myself as a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Maybe it will get me laid by some hot lipstick lesbian.

 

[Lion IRC]

Out of 6,875 survivors of child sex abuse by male pedophiles, 64.3% of the victims were boys. The stats don't lie.

Your repeated claim that these unsourced and unsupported figures you are presenting are "The stats", is tantamount to a lie.

Certainly, no reasonable person would believe your claim here to be true.

I find it fascinating that Lion is comfortable claiming “stats” without ever saying where they are from and how they were acquired. It all seems so Catholic to not only believe everything you hear, but also having zero curiosity about the source material. I mean ZERO. Catholicism is famous among Christians for having the fewest memebers who even bother to read the bible, preferring someoe else to read it for them and produce sermons that are believed without curiosity, but it’s still interesting to see such a pristine example of it.

Here in this thread we watch Lion absolutely uncaring about whether his statements have any basis in fact and him assuming we won’t really care if he doesn’t follow up on questions posed He doesn’t even answer direct questions seeking the data source; one that, history shows, TFT members are totally willing to review for him. He doesn’t even answer. It’s like questions about primary sources are nothing more than a Peanutsian Wua-wua-wua to him. I geuinely wonder if he even really knows what a “stat” is? Fascinating example of Catholicism. They’ll believe anything without proof and they think everyone else will, too.

bilby thinks these stats are claims made by me - that I invented these stats.
He says no reasonable would believe them.
But how can you automatically dismiss a stat when, by your own admission, you don't even know the source.

Some reasonable people believe these stats and other reasonable people may disbelieve them. So what?

 

[skepticalbip]

I find it fascinating that Lion is comfortable claiming “stats” without ever saying where they are from and how they were acquired. It all seems so Catholic to not only believe everything you hear, but also having zero curiosity about the source material. I mean ZERO. Catholicism is famous among Christians for having the fewest memebers who even bother to read the bible, preferring someoe else to read it for them and produce sermons that are believed without curiosity, but it’s still interesting to see such a pristine example of it.

Here in this thread we watch Lion absolutely uncaring about whether his statements have any basis in fact and him assuming we won’t really care if he doesn’t follow up on questions posed He doesn’t even answer direct questions seeking the data source; one that, history shows, TFT members are totally willing to review for him. He doesn’t even answer. It’s like questions about primary sources are nothing more than a Peanutsian Wua-wua-wua to him. I geuinely wonder if he even really knows what a “stat” is? Fascinating example of Catholicism. They’ll believe anything without proof and they think everyone else will, too.

bilby thinks these stats are claims made by me - that I invented these stats.
He says no reasonable would believe them.
But how can you automatically dismiss a stat when, by your own admission, you don't even know the source.

Some reasonable people believe these stats and other reasonable people may disbelieve them. So what?

Sources are asked for so the methodology can be judged. To judge them it must first be determined if these "stats" are just numbers that someone pulled out of their arse or if there was an actual study. If an actual study, what was the methodology, what was the error bars, etc.

It is very common on the internet, from pulpits, in political rallies, etc. for "stats" to be claimed that have absolutely no basis, only posturing to sway.

 

[bilby]

I find it fascinating that Lion is comfortable claiming “stats” without ever saying where they are from and how they were acquired. It all seems so Catholic to not only believe everything you hear, but also having zero curiosity about the source material. I mean ZERO. Catholicism is famous among Christians for having the fewest memebers who even bother to read the bible, preferring someoe else to read it for them and produce sermons that are believed without curiosity, but it’s still interesting to see such a pristine example of it.

Here in this thread we watch Lion absolutely uncaring about whether his statements have any basis in fact and him assuming we won’t really care if he doesn’t follow up on questions posed He doesn’t even answer direct questions seeking the data source; one that, history shows, TFT members are totally willing to review for him. He doesn’t even answer. It’s like questions about primary sources are nothing more than a Peanutsian Wua-wua-wua to him. I geuinely wonder if he even really knows what a “stat” is? Fascinating example of Catholicism. They’ll believe anything without proof and they think everyone else will, too.

bilby thinks these stats are claims made by me - that I invented these stats.

No, I don't. I have no information of any kind about the source of these "stats". All I know is that you are presenting them. The most parsimonious hypothesis is that you made them up, but other explanations are also plausible, so I haven't got anything to base such a thought upon.

I think your claims are unsupported and, as a result, valueless. If you provided a source, then I could begin to think about these "stats". But as you haven't, I have no reason to think about them at all.

He says no reasonable would believe them.
But how can you automatically dismiss a stat when, by your own admission, you don't even know the source.

Because assertions made without evidence are valueless. Any other approach leads to simultaneous belief in mutually exclusive positions, which is the exact opposite of knowledge.

Some reasonable people believe these stats and other reasonable people may disbelieve them. So what?

No reasonable person can believe an unattributed and unsupported claim. To do so is the diametric opposite of reason.

That you reached adulthood without finding this out is a resounding condemnation of your parents and teachers. If you don't know how to deterine what you know, then you can't know anything. You are doomed to a life built on supposition and guesswork, and you will be deeply wrong about a great deal. As you so aptly demonstrate for us here.

 

[atrib]

bilby thinks these stats are claims made by me - that I invented these stats.
He says no reasonable would believe them.
But how can you automatically dismiss a stat when, by your own admission, you don't even know the source.

We can dismiss these alleged stats precisely because they are unsupported. Now if you were to provide a source that describes how these stats were gathered and interpreted, that might be a topic worthy of discussion.

But of course, you knew all this already.