opebo Week: A Celebration of His Life & Times

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

please no

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

While Joe Republic is an exception to this, it's hilarious to see most of the Obepo haters attack his simple, if wrongheaded, defenses of child abuse, while they simultaneously literally worship at the alter of organizations that have systematically enganged in and covered up such behavior since time immemorial. Perhaps if we can simply buy Obepo a cassock, he will not only be reinstated but also have statues of him built so that future generations may know him also.

The clergy needs to be purged. The fact that the largest Christian denomination, for one, has yet to properly embark upon this mission is a disgrace. Many people happen not to have switches in their heads regulating their beliefs that they can simply turn on and off in response to that fact. Which is part of why the clergy needs so badly to be purged.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

While Joe Republic is an exception to this, it's hilarious to see most of the Obepo haters attack his simple, if wrongheaded, defenses of child abuse, while they simultaneously literally worship at the alter of organizations that have systematically enganged in and covered up such behavior since time immemorial. Perhaps if we can simply buy Obepo a cassock, he will not only be reinstated but also have statues of him built so that future generations may know him also.

The clergy needs to be purged. The fact that the largest Christian denomination, for one, has yet to properly embark upon this mission is a disgrace. Many people happen not to have switches in their heads regulating their beliefs that they can simply turn on and off in response to that fact. Which is part of why the clergy needs so badly to be purged.

I'm a bit lost about the switch part.

What I meant was that we can't just choose to stop holding Christian beliefs as a response to the problems that Christian institutions have. We may lose faith as a response to those problems, but that isn't, typically, voluntary.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So you're in the camp with Nathan that religious people are simply too simpleminded to be logically consistent? I was merely giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are not, but they merely view child abuse as a Religious Privilege. I suppose you two could just as easily be correct. Perhaps even a bit of each for certain folks.

When on earth did Nathan say that "religious people are simply too simpleminded to be logically consistent", I ask? It would be insulting himself so I'm legitimately curious.

Never mind the fact the Pope- the Pope himself- has essentially called for the Church to clean up its act and for the Curia to be overhauled, and here you are still insisting that practicing (or not practicing, as most of the people you are accusing do) Catholicism is somehow intrinsically the same thing as calling a pedophile "one of our brothers" and a "victim".

You, once again, have managed to derail a thread so that you can spew invective at the "religious dumbs" and prove to all your inherent superiority over them. Congratulations.

My position in this thread was that religious people mentally brush off the issue of sex abuse as if it were a small, trifling matter, while, at the same time, condemning in the harshest terms, a man who has merely expressed sympathy for the abuser. I maintain that this is a matter of Religious Privilege (only the clergy get the slap on the wrist, or as you put it a "call to clean up their act").  It was indeed Nathan who insisted that the issue was that.

"The clergy needs to be purged. The fact that the largest Christian denomination, for one, has yet to properly embark upon this mission is a disgrace. Many people happen not to have switches in their heads regulating their beliefs that they can simply turn on and off in response to that fact."

If you have an issue with that statement, you must go its author, who is not me.

I can't actually tell what position you're claiming I hold, but I'm pretty sure that whatever it is I don't.

This thread keeps getting worse. That's quite an achievement considering the lows it started from.

Sasuga things related to opebo.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Most of the Anti-Opebo drive was not religious in nature. I don't know where you get the idea that it was, except that it dovetails nicely with your political views.

The sex-negative feminist prudes on here are just as bad, if not worse.

Thank you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To be fair, Madeleine is far from the only sex-negative feminist prude on the Atlas. He is merely the intellectual ringleader.

Using my preferred name but not my preferred pronoun is an interesting choice. I take it this is the go-to option for the classy and discerning bigot these days?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To be fair, Madeleine is far from the only sex-negative feminist prude on the Atlas. He is merely the intellectual ringleader.

Using my preferred name but not my preferred pronoun is an interesting choice. I take it this is the go-to option for the classy and discerning bigot these days?

Must everything be about you? If you would like a Celebrate Madeline week thread, start one. As it happens, name changes are a real thing, and I respect that. If you want me to go back to calling you Nathan, I will.

I have no idea how to respond to this. Missing the point of what I said so spectacularly has got to be deliberate. In any case, Cory made this about me first so take your trolling up with him.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To be fair, Madeleine is far from the only sex-negative feminist prude on the Atlas. He is merely the intellectual ringleader.

Using my preferred name but not my preferred pronoun is an interesting choice. I take it this is the go-to option for the classy and discerning bigot these days?

Must everything be about you? If you would like a Celebrate Madeline week thread, start one. As it happens, name changes are a real thing, and I respect that. If you want me to go back to calling you Nathan, I will.

I have no idea how to respond to this. Missing the point of what I said so spectacularly has got to be deliberate. In any case, Cory made this about me first so take your trolling up with him.

You didn't say anything other than making your typical ad hominem attack against me. OMGZ U R a meen Bigut!1111 But again, this thread isn't about you and your attention whoring. We've been down that road far too many time. This is my last reply to you and your ilk in this thread.

Entirely aside from your creepy insistence on the integrity of an internet stranger's gametes, there's such a thing as common courtesy, and you had to go too far out of your way to compose that passage the way you did for me to give you the benefit of the doubt. (Also, I have an 'ilk' now? Cool! Do we get matching jackets?)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To be fair, Madeleine is far from the only sex-negative feminist prude on the Atlas. He is merely the intellectual ringleader.

Using my preferred name but not my preferred pronoun is an interesting choice. I take it this is the go-to option for the classy and discerning bigot these days?

Must everything be about you? If you would like a Celebrate Madeline week thread, start one. As it happens, name changes are a real thing, and I respect that. If you want me to go back to calling you Nathan, I will.

I have no idea how to respond to this. Missing the point of what I said so spectacularly has got to be deliberate. In any case, Cory made this about me first so take your trolling up with him.

You didn't say anything other than making your typical ad hominem attack against me. OMGZ U R a meen Bigut!1111 But again, this thread isn't about you and your attention whoring. We've been down that road far too many time. This is my last reply to you and your ilk in this thread.

Entirely aside from your creepy insistence on the integrity of an internet stranger's gametes, there's such a thing as common courtesy, and you had to go too far out of your way to compose that passage the way you did for me to give you the benefit of the doubt. (Also, I have an 'ilk' now? Cool! Do we get matching jackets?)

Oh of course we can get the Prude Brood uniforms! 

I'm actually really charmed that this exists.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, I mean, it's also hilarious how convinced some people are of that regarding First World prostitutes, so...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ah yes, "progressives" once again pushing the mysoginistic and anti-worker position that the state should be able to tell women who they can and cannot have sex with.

Not so much with whom (pedo laws notwithstanding) but under what terms. For the sex negative types, women desperately need the government's consent. The government knows better than you do if you really want to have sex. That the negs call sex workers "third world whores" tells you all you need to know about their attitudes and values.

It's less that there's any relevant state interest in preventing sex from being sold (the morality of doing so aside--'it's immoral' isn't really sufficient reason to ban something) and more that there are any number of reasons to be skeptical of allowing it to be bought. Also, the word that Gustaf used was 'prostitute', not the best word in the world but one which neither insults nor euphemizes. (There are grounds on which to criticize the term 'Third World' but that's a separate issue.) You're the one who brought the word 'whore' into this conversation. The fact that you've done this tells us all we need to know about your integrity and sincerity.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ah yes, "progressives" once again pushing the mysoginistic and anti-worker position that the state should be able to tell women who they can and cannot have sex with.

Not so much with whom (pedo laws notwithstanding) but under what terms. For the sex negative types, women desperately need the government's consent. The government knows better than you do if you really want to have sex. That the negs call sex workers "third world whores" tells you all you need to know about their attitudes and values.

It's less that there's any relevant state interest in preventing sex from being sold (the morality of doing so aside--'it's immoral' isn't really sufficient reason to ban something) and more that there are any number of reasons to be skeptical of allowing it to be bought. Also, the word that Gustaf used was 'prostitute', not the best word in the world but one which neither insults nor euphemizes. (There are grounds on which to criticize the term 'Third World' but that's a separate issue.) You're the one who brought the word 'whore' into this conversation. The fact that you've done this tells us all we need to know about your integrity and sincerity.

Let's look at the transcript

It's hilarious how convinced you all are that third world prostitutes are totally consensual happy whores

You're aware that 'happy whore' is a set phrase, right?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ah yes, "progressives" once again pushing the mysoginistic and anti-worker position that the state should be able to tell women who they can and cannot have sex with.

Not so much with whom (pedo laws notwithstanding) but under what terms. For the sex negative types, women desperately need the government's consent. The government knows better than you do if you really want to have sex. That the negs call sex workers "third world whores" tells you all you need to know about their attitudes and values.

It's less that there's any relevant state interest in preventing sex from being sold (the morality of doing so aside--'it's immoral' isn't really sufficient reason to ban something) and more that there are any number of reasons to be skeptical of allowing it to be bought. Also, the word that Gustaf used was 'prostitute', not the best word in the world but one which neither insults nor euphemizes. (There are grounds on which to criticize the term 'Third World' but that's a separate issue.) You're the one who brought the word 'whore' into this conversation. The fact that you've done this tells us all we need to know about your integrity and sincerity.

Let's look at the transcript

It's hilarious how convinced you all are that third world prostitutes are totally consensual happy whores

You're aware that 'happy whore' is a set phrase, right?

Here comes the walk back. Oh goody....

So, is your position here that there are certain words and, presumably, images that are always offensive and inappropriate regardless of context or rhetorical intent? Because if that isn't your position, then, well, the accusations of quote-mining basically make themselves, now, don't they? Boy, you must be reallllly ticked off at the Charlie Hebdo people, then!

Side note: My admitted habit of occasionally making and then walking back faulty points is better than your habit of never apologizing for or admitting to being wrong about anything that would make you look the least bit bad.