Finding A Shirt

[decomposinglight]

Sure, if you're a "lyin' bitch whore" named "bonanza jellybean."

 

Really classy.

[mrs jesus]

Really classy.

i'd love to be able to say the same for you, but on further reading of your posts it appears that "boring twat" will still suffice. oh my.

[decomposinglight]

Honestly, I'm not going to pick a fight with you. Your own description of yourself proves useful here.

[marx marvelous]

May the record show that it was, in fact, MY description of her.

 

Also: heyrabbit is the ultimate threadshitter, and decomposinglight, for someone with a supposed I.Q. over 9000, takes the bait every. god. damn. time.

 

Also#2: Anton said I could not post a giant photo of shit here, so just imagine it.

Edited May 1, 2008 by marx marvelous

[decomposinglight]

May the record show that it was, in fact, MY description of her.

 

Also: heyrabbit is the ultimate threadshitter, and decomposinglight, for someone with a supposed I.Q. over 9000, takes the bait every. god. damn. time.

 

Also#2: Anton said I could not post a giant photo of shit here, so just imagine it.

I thought you were better than insults, James. ;)

 

It's kind of hard not to be susceptible to his threadshit when he attacks things that I say. I also like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, even if I can't help but feel like THEY'RE LIKE EVERY OTHER GODDAMN AYN RAND NERD, going too far into my business when everyone just wants them to shut their trap. Lastly, as I've previously stated, I get bored. But next time, kiddies, it will be different.

 

That said...

 

???

 

I deem anything off-topic in this thread DONE. Please follow suit.

[marx marvelous]

I think I just wanted people to talk shit on heyrabbit, I feel pretty much satisfied now. Carry on my wayward son.

[heyrabbit]

Sorry to hear about your concussion.

 

In response to your second paragraph, I can see where our opinions may not have meshed. By U.S. law, Canadian law, or that of most democratic nations, the age of consent and legal marriage age are often higher than the age at which a person experiences puberty. We could all go around saying "Egyptians married and popped 'em out at 12! It's all good!," but you and I both know that's bullshit. While these actions can be physically done, and puberty is a technical and biological determinant that someone has "come of age," we must recognize that in today's world (and I'd wager the world of most time-frames) 12 year olds are mentally incapable of a lot of things and highly susceptible to a slew of hogwash. You've got me there; Islamic churches and Mormons are employing some wacky logic when they say 11 year olds are A-OK to be married off. I certainly didn't have the intellectual chops to make financial or family planning decisions when I was that young. It doesn't make you right that religion breeds pedophilia, but it makes you right on something, at least.

 

Now, when you say priests have been accused of abusing, let's remember that anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Just because some priests have been accused doesn't mean they did it (ever read John Patrick Shanley's "Doubt"?). You say that "many" take advantage of the opportunity placed before them to abuse young people and that it's "reasonable" to say that "a lot" of priests have been pedophiles. With between 0.2 and 4% accused, is this really something "we know"? Additionally, making an analysis of the microcosm and transferring assumptions to the macrocosm is illogical and fallacious. The fact that a small number of celibate, religious people enact pedophilia upon others doesn't mean religion breeds pedophilia. It only proves that a religious person who choses to be celibate can become frustrated and commit these acts with the readily accessible altar boys. Frustrated celibate people could also go get themselves a hooker or fuck a nun, but is anyone reporting that? Nah. It could even be that neither religion nor celibacy are the determinants here, as I'll discuss later. I'd wager celibacy is more of a determinant, though, not religion; it's just that most celibate people chose to be so as a

result of their religious beliefs. If you're going to say that "religion caused them to be celibate, so it's religion's fault," then say that all you want - it doesn't make it true. The margin of any religious persons to be pedophiles is hardly large enough to say there is a propensity for pedophilia to occur, or that it is common. All of this is like saying that I know one douchebag from Ontario, thus all people from Ontario must be douchebags. Likewise, some black people adore fried chicken, watermelon, and Kool-aid (as the stereotype perpetuates), so all black people must adore these things. In reality, neither are the case. Taking the smallest minutia to the aggregate level without proper research doesn't get you any kudos.

 

I'm not going to touch on your last paragraph, because it's obvious that someone in most other professions doesn't have the requirement of celibacy. We can determine that without your help.

 

Finally, let's debunk everything you just said. Do you think that homosexuals chose to be homosexuals? Just woke up one day and said "dude, I like dudes!"? On the contrary, it has been proven that there are genetic links. Accordingly, it has been proven that pedophilia is a mental disorder with biological determinants. That's why rehab programs for pedophiles rarely work. These people are biologically attracted to children and the only proven way to suppress their urges entirely is to castrate them and/or inhibit their sex drives with medication. People who are pedophiles would have acted on these tendencies whether they became priests or not. If Pedophile A is a CEO of Apple, he's still gonna fuck kiddies.

 

Lastly, what doctrine states, "God came down and told the people 'RAPE CHILDREN!'"? Again, just because some sects of Christianity or Islam do the nasty with youngins' doesn't mean that the religious doctrine says it's ok, or that the religion itself breeds pedophilia. Pedophiles are predisposed to these things, they act on them - it happens. It's the people, not the religion.

;)

 

Religion causes adults to marry children. Sex is a part of marriage, therefore it stands to reason that religion causes pedophilia.

 

I don't know enough about pedophilia to say to what extent the problem is genetic. The problem is obviously biological and psychological and you can draw analogies to gay sex. Maybe some are born with that desire. Maybe under conditions of extreme stress people develop that desire, or maybe they just satisfy the desire with the opportunity that's readily available to them, like prison sex (How much of prison sex is motivated by a desire for men as opposed to a desire for sex in general?). It could be that the ability maniulate children without getting caught is way more of a factor than a desire to sleep with children specifically. Though many of them prefer prefer boys over girls, which only adds to their deviancy. At any rate, it appears to me that they are not just creative and dedicated pedophiles, who entered the profession for that purpose, as opposed to the less venturous pedophiles who stick to grabbing kids in McDonald's washrooms.

 

I don't think you are really arguing that sexual abuse by priests is some sort of myth. That's a premise that the whole argument rests on. The question isn't whether or not it is happening but, rather, why it is happening. The 0.2% was actually the amount of proven abusers. The 4% was thrown out as an estimate of abusers. Whicever number is closer to the truth, it's clear that abuse by priests is not some sort of myth or abberation. The common denominator is their priesthood. That is why the debate exists in the first place, for the very reason that it is a niche career.

 

There is no fallacy because my argument isn't that religion creates a propensity for pedophilia (That argument is incomplete, for the same reasons that it's not enough to say that religion causes murder). The likelihood of a person who's religious to be a pedophile is astronomically low, of course. But the likelihood of being a priest who's a pedophile is quite high. Concurrently and coincidentally, the likelihood of a Catholic priest to be religious is also fairly high.

 

I don't know what specific scripture supports this, although I know that it is an expression of Christian doctrine and is in entirely justifiable for just about every major religion. (It is no more or less justifiable than mostly anything else you can justify doing with the Bible). If God is the most virtuous being in the universe, the model being for millions people, than what's wrong with him setting the example of magically inseminating (raping) the virgin Mary, who was known to be about 14 at the time. He was curteous enough to ask first, I'll give him that.

 

 

D'lite, I don't expect anyone on an MG forum to value me :angry: I'd be worried if they did. But it's obvious that neither of us post here just because we're bored.

 

Threadshitting: Beating someone so bad in an argument that they can't respond and instead accuse you of threadshitting.

 

Threadconstipation: Difficulty getting it out causing frustration, often resulting in an explosion of verbal diarrhea and insults.

[mrs jesus]

May the record show that it was, in fact, MY description of her.

you remembered!

 

;)

[decomposinglight]

But it's obvious that neither of us post here just because we're bored.

 

Threadshitting: Beating someone so bad in an argument that they can't respond and instead accuse you of threadshitting.

 

Threadconstipation: Difficulty getting it out causing frustration, often resulting in an explosion of verbal diarrhea and insults.

Don't tell me why I post here. I don't try to put words in your mouth, do I? I do come here because I am bored. That is that. I certainly could figure out my Matthew Good news solely from matthewgood.org if I was so inclined.

 

I don't know where you got those definitions from, but that's not how I see it. Threadshit, to me, is being off topic and purposefully starting pointless arguments (that obviously have nothing to do with the thread), sometimes by means of excessive trolling (which you don't necessarily do). (Yes, by that definition, I aided your threadshit) I've never even heard of thread constipation, so I'm going to disregard that, as it is clearly not the case here. So please, please, don't use the fact that I said you were threadshitting as proof that you've "beaten" me. Oh, my. Not that.

 

I won't be a part of this here anymore. I felt uncertain about it even when it was just us discussing in this thread (I don't like to be off topic), but others have been brought into it (and not just saying things like "how about them t-shirts?"), so it's really going to have to stop. They've started not only to insult you, but to insult me. I certainly don't want to have to defend my character just because I wanted to find out more about your views. I also know that if this discussion keeps going, this thread will be closed. If you'd like to talk, again, private message me. I'm done participating in this nonsense with you. We have stretched this out for 2 pages now, and with everything I say, you just keep changing your argument to something else. First it was about MG being anti-war, then it became about religion's stupidity, and now it's about religion breeding pedophilia..

[heyrabbit]

Don't tell me why I post here. I don't try to put words in your mouth, do I? I do come here because I am bored. That is that. I certainly could figure out my Matthew Good news solely from matthewgood.org if I was so inclined.

 

I don't know where you got those definitions from, but that's not how I see it. Threadshit, to me, is being off topic and purposefully starting pointless arguments (that obviously have nothing to do with the thread), sometimes by means of excessive trolling (which you don't necessarily do). (Yes, by that definition, I aided your threadshit) I've never even heard of thread constipation, so I'm going to disregard that, as it is clearly not the case here. So please, please, don't use the fact that I said you were threadshitting as proof that you've "beaten" me. Oh, my. Not that.

 

I won't be a part of this here anymore. I felt uncertain about it even when it was just us discussing in this thread (I don't like to be off topic), but others have been brought into it (and not just saying things like "how about them t-shirts?"), so it's really going to have to stop. They've started not only to insult you, but to insult me. I certainly don't want to have to defend my character just because I wanted to find out more about your views. I also know that if this discussion keeps going, this thread will be closed. If you'd like to talk, again, private message me. I'm done participating in this nonsense with you. We have stretched this out for 2 pages now, and with everything I say, you just keep changing your argument to something else. First it was about MG being anti-war, then it became about religion's stupidity, and now it's about religion breeding pedophilia..

Those definitions in response to marx. In actuality, I think "threadshitting" is used to mean posts that people don't like, whether that means someone says something you don't like, or whether it's a post that demands too much of the reader. So that's childish. If most people don't like my posts, that doesn't mean they're shit. One person's threadshitting is another person's stimulating conversation. I view dropping short, narrow, perfunctory remarks as being more suitable to be called "shit". So what, that's my subjective taste. I put quite a lot of effort into a lot of my posts. They're often long and have a lot of substance, like a long neat turd, easily scrolled past, as opposed to a multitude of small turds.

 

I think it's boring if threads are narrow and stagnant. This particular conversation digressed because you responded to different parts of my argument. So what, that's normal. The whole point of having a "forum" is to exchange a wide range of ideas and opinions from lots of different people on a wide range of topics. Sometimes I feel like responding to things without having to always originate a thread, so sue me. I've never interrupted a conversation to say, "I'd like to announce that I am now broaching the subject of ____". Threads are meant to start things going, they're not file folders. If people didn't digress and expand into different areas related to the original topic, then there'd be nothing to say. I don't view anything other than a two line estimate of the title topic as being off topic.

 

 

I'm not concerned about people's insults. That's "threadshitting to me", boring and pointless. Hardly anyone insults me, and if they do, they never do a good job. it only makes them look stupid. I don't think you should be concerned either. Like I said before, I do not view argument as at all inherently hostile. (Lots of people do, which is why they end up giving insults when they lose. ) I'm disappointed if you view debating as burdensome. But if that's the case, I guess yo'ud better stop.

 

By the way, Happy Birthday!

Edited May 3, 2008 by heyrabbit

[Crusader]

shit thread: this thread.