(New York Gay Pride Parade)
Posted on 07/06/2015 10:25:06 AM PDT by C19fan
Then a majority of Catholics voted for Obama in 2008 and they are hypocritical moral degenerates.
It seems we are of one accord.
In this you propose that unreasonable people would vote for reasonable candidates? Were that true then the former group would be reasonable, would they not?
Pardon my phraseology. I can’t hate Catholics, as I am one.
There’s probably at least 10 million American voters that aren’t familiar enough with current issues or basic civics to the extent that they should be voting anyway. 10 million is enough to push Al Franken over the top should he choose to run for president
I’m not Catholic. But I did study “Father Smith Instructs Jackson” when I was ten, and take the bulk of my understanding of Catholicism from that.
Please tell me how putting your penis in anothers’ anus gives “dignity” for either party.
“Then a majority of Catholics voted for Obama in 2008 and they are hypocritical moral degenerates.”
Now you’re just trying to provoke. You should be embarrassed.
I already pointed out that the specious logic you used to pretend to arrive at that conclusion is transparent sophistry.
You yourself don’t believe that most Catholics are moral degenerates. You’re just so tickled to imagine that you’ve stumbled into a “got’cha” that you can’t bear to let go of it.
Pay attention this time, and try—really try—to understand.
Nothing I have said implies that most Catholics are moral degenerates. If you really think so, then you are mistaken. Maybe you can get a computer course in logic.
If you are just playing “got’cha,” then you need to answer this question: who is “the Father of Lies?”
Out of a sense of duty, rather than any real hope of being understood, I will review the action.
You posited an innate ability to recognize reason.
I pointed out that if there were such an innate ability, demonrats would not be elected.
The implication of that is that people would not vote for demonrats if they had an innate ability to recognize reason, because they would see reason on the right and not the left.
However, demonrats have in fact been elected. It must follow, therefore, that people possess no such innate ability to recognize reason.
End of argument. Selah.
You, however, responded to the foregoing with this: “In this you propose that unreasonable people would vote for reasonable candidates?”
How in the world could anyone get that from the exchange repeated above? I said that demonrats are shown to be unreasonable by the fact that they vote for unreasonable candidates. Where, in anything I said, is any implication that “unreasonable people would vote for reasonable candidates?”
People who vote for reasonable candidates are acting reasonably. (I shouldn’t have to insert a disclaimer to the effect that no man is perfectly reasonable, but I think I’d better, may God help the United States.)
That notwithstanding, the central deception here is the sleight-of-hand by means of which you switched the discussion from one of how people would act with or without an innate “ability to recognize reason,” to one of “reasonable people” versus “unreasonable people.” Or do you fail to see the difference?
You see, even without an innate “ability to recognize reason” (and we did just establish that there is no such ability, in case you didn’t notice), people can learn to recognize reason or even to use reason correctly. Once again, reasonable with no innate ability.
Even—no, especially—those who are intelligent in other areas can be pewling morons in, for instance, moral philosophy, and that accounts for “intelligent” demonrats.
Conversely, those who are pewling morons pretty much across the board can get lucky and be taught to hold reasonable positions, and that accounts for the small percentages of stupid Republicans and Conservatives.
Of course, once Satan’s little energizer bunnies get their hooks into a moron, there’s no reasoning with him.
“...a moron, there’s no reasoning with him.”
This much we can agree on.
After reviewing the action, I’m not inclined to let you get away with your first offense against reason, either.
In response to your brutal rape of logic when you said, “the majority of Catholics are hypocrites who supposedly oppose abortion and gay marriage yet they can be counted upon to consistently vote Democrat in election after election.” I replied, “So, since Slick Willie and Chairman Maobama were both elected twice, we can say that “Americans” are moral degenerates who “can be counted upon to consistently vote Democrat in election after election.”
Limbaugh calls this “using absurdity to illustrate absurdity.” The clear implication of my statement is that it would be imminently irrational to say that “Americans are moral degenerates” on the grounds that moral degenerates have been elected to the presidency four times in the last six elections.
After all, we know at most how half the population voted. The figure is smaller than that once we account for voter fraud. Of these, let’s say half voted for the degenerate. Half of a half is…anybody? Bueller?
That’s right, fewer than 25% of votes were cast for the degenerate. How many fewer than 25%? We don’t know, but the number is not zero. And did all of them know they were voting for a moral degenerate? Almost certainly not.
The absolute worst we can say, then, is that some figure less than 25% of Americans are either moral degenerates or allowed themselves to be flim-flammed, intimidated, or bribed into voting for a moral degenerate.
It follows, therefore, that it would be not merely inaccurate, but malicious, to say that “Americans” are moral degenerates who “can be counted upon to consistently vote Democrat in election after election.”
That forces us to conclude that your statement regarding Catholics, that “the majority of Catholics are hypocrites who supposedly oppose abortion and gay marriage yet they can be counted upon to consistently vote Democrat in election after election,” must be evaluated by the same criteria.
Well, almost the same criteria. The data you produced showed that the majority of white Catholics voted for the good guy—or at least the guy who wasn’t a moral degenerate. That means that significantly fewer than 25% of white Catholics voted for moral degenerates.
When we look at non-white Catholics, we find ourselves looking primarily at border crashers, their children, and their grandchildren. We also find ourselves scratching our heads as Chicano Catholics try to square Catholicism with pressure from gangs, from professional Mexicans like La Raza, and from the general criminality in the slums. (And please don’t slur the memory of European Jews by calling them ghettos. The are not ghettos; they are slums.)
Given the extremely low educational level among this segment of the population, we must conclude that many demonrat-voting Catholics are simply disinformed.
The most important factor in this, and the one that is universally overlooked, is that a Catholic can only vote for a politician who supports ritual infant sacrifice and the practice of sodomy once.
That’s right: once.
At the instant that he pulls the lever for a moral degenerate (and yes, anyone who supports abortion and sodomy is a moral degenerate), he is excommunicated, latae sententiae, and may no longer truthfully call himself a Catholic. The number of Catholics who vote for degenerates is, therefore, vanishingly small.
It might appear that there are grounds to hold the Catholic Church responsible for allowing so many people to become so deluded as to excommunicate themselves. However, it is not the Church herself that is to blame, but rather men and women, priests and nuns, who have abused their positions of responsibility to mislead the faithful—or, at least, those who wish to be counted among the faithful.
This, in turn, is the result of Satan’s greater power throughout the 20th century, quite often exercised through the Soviet Union and its slave nations.
All things examined, your statement that “present company excepted, the majority of Catholics are hypocrites who supposedly oppose abortion and gay marriage yet they can be counted upon to consistently vote Democrat in election after election,” is not merely not merely inaccurate, but malicious.
Some people might raise the objection that it couldn’t be malicious if you actually thought you were telling the truth. To that I reply that you had a moral duty to inform yourself before you started slinging detraction around in public.
“This much we can agree on.”
You have no standing to agree with me on this, as you have demonstrated no ability to reason.
Let it go. Move on. You made your point and I won’t argue it any further.
“There’s probably at least 10 million American voters that aren’t familiar enough with current issues or basic civics to the extent that they should be voting anyway.”
You really have a high opinion of the public. I would put that number above 200 million.
“Move on.”
Me move on? You’re the one who jumped in with specious and insulting claims.
BTW, there’s no dignity in claiming that you won’t argue further when you’ve already lost the debate.
(New York Gay Pride Parade)
If that’s a whistle, it’s a nice touch. Otherwise he would never draw attention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.