Pope says spreading fake news is a sin
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2016, 11:56 AM
RE: Pope says spreading fake news is a sin
(20-12-2016 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  To summarize, laws are meant to be instrumented as a form of control, and control is nothing more than an illusion.

Poor generalization. So you have the illusion of control of your bowels? You seem to not understand that the difference here is proof. You can have evidence that laws are beneficial. Helmet laws for example, save lives. Seat belt laws save lives. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that keeping women as second class citizens is beneficial to a society. As far as I am aware, saying that a person should choose the invisible man over their own family has no benefit to a society. There is no proof of hell, only the illusion of it. It can be demonstrated that the implementation of seat belt laws led to a lower rate of death (coupled with other things). Ralph Nader made a career out of things like this.

Laws can also be implemented as a means of social change. Do you really think that the civil rights legislation of the 60's did not lead to more acceptance of minorities in the generations to come? From what you have written, your focus seems to be very narrow.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
20-12-2016, 02:02 PM
RE: Pope says spreading fake news is a sin
(20-12-2016 11:56 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(20-12-2016 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  To summarize, laws are meant to be instrumented as a form of control, and control is nothing more than an illusion.

Poor generalization. So you have the illusion of control of your bowels? You seem to not understand that the difference here is proof. You can have evidence that laws are beneficial. Helmet laws for example, save lives. Seat belt laws save lives. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that keeping women as second class citizens is beneficial to a society. As far as I am aware, saying that a person should choose the invisible man over their own family has no benefit to a society. There is no proof of hell, only the illusion of it. It can be demonstrated that the implementation of seat belt laws led to a lower rate of death (coupled with other things). Ralph Nader made a career out of things like this.

Laws can also be implemented as a means of social change. Do you really think that the civil rights legislation of the 60's did not lead to more acceptance of minorities in the generations to come? From what you have written, your focus seems to be very narrow.

Bring it back organic, the effects of laws are not the issue. The issue is that he believes our actions are compulsory because of laws, as if laws should define how he acts or behaves.

And no, the laws of the 60's did nothing to make minorities more accepted, that was the result of a very lengthy campaign of morality and ethics, because the people willed it so, so laws came into existence on the matter. The laws themselves don't actually exist except inside our heads. Most people are willing to comply with the illusion of law. Just as a lot of people are also willing to comply with the illusion of hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 07:03 PM
RE: Pope says spreading fake news is a sin
(20-12-2016 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If its laws you're after, Catholics by your definition do believe they are compelled to follow the church because they believe it is God's Law.
And now you are resorting to stripping my point down to a single word and ignoring the rest of the content, while also being wrong in the exact same way as before. It's also not MY definition its THE definition you shifty cunt. Dig, dig, dig little boy but you ain't gettin' any closer to not bein' an idiot.

You made the assertion through your comparison that not giving money to the Church was equivalent to not paying taxes. I then proceeded to demonstrate that your comparison is fallacious in that one is purely compulsory and the other is voluntary BECAUSE one is enforced through violence, imprisonment, and the fact you can be forced to pay it back and the other is not enforced in such a way at all. If you don't give money to the Church absolutely nothing happens, you remain a Catholic despite your assertions otherwise.

You then tried to claim that you HAVE to give money to the Church or you are not a Catholic. I showed multiple times over that this is patently not true. you repeated this claim several times even after I had provided evidence from the church itself that this was not the case.
You are now trying to back pedal and say that BOTH are compulsory, in a vain attempt to keep your fallacious comparison afloat, by completely and utterly ignoring the rest of differences that render your comparison fallacious anyway even if both were compulsory. Which is ITSELF a separate and equally grievous fallacy. Which is immediately after you tried to argue that NEITHER were compulsory.

You have tried to express 5-6+ different positions on the matter and somehow you have managed to be wrong on every single one. Every. Single. One. The goal posts haven't just been shifted around the pitch, you have fucking thrown them into the goddamn ocean.

(20-12-2016 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Now this is the part where we both say that god's law doesn't exist because god doesn't exist.
No, actually it's fucking not, I'll tell you what I think not the other way around. Lets say for the sake of argument they are both equally relevant (they are not), let's even say you are required to give money to the Church (you are not) and lets go a step further and even say that failure to do so makes you no longer a Catholic (it does not).
Your comparison is still faulty, fallacious, and does not apply to my criticism because one is enforced through violence, force, and imprisonment and the other is not and in fact, has no negative repercussions for doing so making it goddamn fallacious. So even if I ignore multiple cases where you are flat out wrong YOU STILL ENDUP BEING FUCKING WRONG.

(20-12-2016 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But you see, the law of men doesn't exist either. Because our laws are like god, they're imaginary and completely made up. So you see in reality, nothing is compulsory.
It's like a first-year philosophy class with you. Did you realize your shitty abuse of the English language in your last post failed to impress me so now you are going to try to dazzle me with the legal thinking and rational equivalent of an undercooked bagel?

The fact that laws are man-made and largely conceptual does not mean they don't apply to you and that you are not subject to them and their enforcement. You are required by law to pay taxes, making them compulsory by definition, in the same way that, stopping at a red light is not fucking optional in the eyes of the law. The fact they are compulsory does not make you less free, and the fact you can choose to not pay or run the red light does not make them any less compulsory.

And again...even if that was NOT the case your comparison is still stupid and fallacous and you remain, as you have been since the start, entirely wrong.

(20-12-2016 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  So the problem isn't with me comparing the government to the Catholic church.
No that is EXACTLY the fucking problem. You made a stupid, ignorant, and fallacious comparison which has been shown to be fallacious and factually incorrect in MULTIPLE goddamn ways and you don't have the balls or the brains to admit you are wrong and abandon it. You just keep digging your hole deeper and now it's alarmingly grave shaped.
Almost your ENTIRE argument is based on this fallacious defense which is why it's been so easy for me to blast it out of the water again and again and again.

(20-12-2016 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The problem lays with you not being able to grasp the ideals of freedom for the very same reasons Catholics can't.
This is only true if your definition of freedom is "I can do whatever I want whenever I want with no repercussions and anything else is not freedom" because as I said above the fact you are required by law to do things does NOT make you a slave or violate your freedom.
Anarchism or GTFO basically, and that is a laughably, LAUGHABLY, simplistic and childish view of freedom.

You keep trying to talk about how I'M not able to grasp things yet it's me that has to repeatedly and consistently hold your hand through explanations up to giving your ass individual definitions so you can have a basic understanding of what i'm talking about.

(20-12-2016 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  "Follow the laws of the government or you'll go to jail.

Follow the laws of god or you'll go to hell."
Except that in the actual case we are actually talking about that is actually not goddamn accurate at all. If you refuse to pay taxes you will be arrested, jailed, and forced to pay them. If you don't give money to the Church you will.....still go to Heaven when you die because you are still a Catholic even if you don't because it's not a motherfucking criteria to avoid hell.

Do you think if you just take clearly explained things and make them as vague as you possibly can you think I will forget that I've already explained how it works to you? Multiple times.
You have passed the point of just being dense and goddamn stupid and you are now in intentionally dishonest territory.

(20-12-2016 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You sir obey the government much the same reason why Catholics obey. Out of fear, and not just any fear, but fear of the imaginary.
That's strange given earlier you said you obey laws and pay taxes because you like what that gets you. Now it's suddenly outta fear? Why it's almost like you can't keep your bullshit together. Drinking Beverage

I obey laws, those that I do obey, not out of fear of repercussions but because I have lived places where the Rule of Law has broken down. I'd rather avoid that personally. Also, I live in Canada and my government does, for the most part, a damn fine job in my opinion and I'm not really afraid of government. Cultural difference I suppose.

(20-12-2016 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  As for the actions one takes against those of a religious disposition compared to a political disposition, I believe you'll find that even today many people suffer from their religious dispositions. Further more we should not define our actions by how other people will react to them, we should define our actions by what is right.
This has utterly no conceivable relevance to anything I have talked about at all, as I have never talked at all about taking action against people of any kind either religious or political. In fact, I don't mention anything political at all until you bumble fucked your way into your idiotic and fallacious comparison. You're basically pulling objections out of your ass for points I never made. Amusingly enough most of the ACTUAL points I have made stand uncontested.
Lolz.Drinking Beverage

Another tangent with no relevance. Good, you almost went an entire post without one of those.

(20-12-2016 02:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  To summarize, laws are meant to be instrumented as a form of control, and control is nothing more than an illusion.
No, they are not, they are designed to facilitate a fair and just society in which to live. "Laws protect our general safety, and ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other people, by organizations, and by the government itself. We have laws to help provide for our general safety."

If you think laws are just a form of control over people, and that they are nothing more than illusions you are welcome to stop paying taxes and write me a long letter, which I won't read, about how imaginary you find your jail cell to be.
When D-grade philosophy meets reality, reality always wins.

PS: Don't think I'm not keeping track of all the stupid shit you assert that I have proven wrong which you have failed to acknowledge. For example, if your gonna be stupid enough to call me a conspiracy theorist for claiming the church knowingly shuffled child rapists around to shield them from prosecution you better have the fucking balls to man up when I drop the evidence in your fucking lap.
If you are gonna bring that weak ass shit into my kitchen you better be willing to chow down son.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 07:06 PM
RE: Pope says spreading fake news is a sin
(20-12-2016 02:02 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The issue is that he believes our actions are compulsory because of laws, as if laws should define how he acts or behaves.
You have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues if you think that's what I believe.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 08:44 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2016 08:51 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Pope says spreading fake news is a sin
(20-12-2016 07:03 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  And now you are resorting to stripping my point down to a single word and ignoring the rest of the content, while also being wrong in the exact same way as before. It's also not MY definition its THE definition you shifty cunt. Dig, dig, dig little boy but you ain't gettin' any closer to not bein' an idiot.

You made the assertion through your comparison that not giving money to the Church was equivalent to not paying taxes. I then proceeded to demonstrate that your comparison is fallacious in that one is purely compulsory and the other is voluntary BECAUSE one is enforced through violence, imprisonment, and the fact you can be forced to pay it back and the other is not enforced in such a way at all. If you don't give money to the Church absolutely nothing happens, you remain a Catholic despite your assertions otherwise.

You then tried to claim that you HAVE to give money to the Church or you are not a Catholic. I showed multiple times over that this is patently not true. you repeated this claim several times even after I had provided evidence from the church itself that this was not the case.
You are now trying to back pedal and say that BOTH are compulsory, in a vain attempt to keep your fallacious comparison afloat, by completely and utterly ignoring the rest of differences that render your comparison fallacious anyway even if both were compulsory. Which is ITSELF a separate and equally grievous fallacy. Which is immediately after you tried to argue that NEITHER were compulsory.

You have tried to express 5-6+ different positions on the matter and somehow you have managed to be wrong on every single one. Every. Single. One. The goal posts haven't just been shifted around the pitch, you have fucking thrown them into the goddamn ocean.

No, actually it's fucking not, I'll tell you what I think not the other way around. Lets say for the sake of argument they are both equally relevant (they are not), let's even say you are required to give money to the Church (you are not) and lets go a step further and even say that failure to do so makes you no longer a Catholic (it does not).

Your comparison is still faulty, fallacious, and does not apply to my criticism because one is enforced through violence, force, and imprisonment and the other is not and in fact, has no negative repercussions for doing so making it goddamn fallacious. So even if I ignore multiple cases where you are flat out wrong YOU STILL ENDUP BEING FUCKING WRONG.

You're wrong because I said you are!

Quote:It's like a first-year philosophy class with you. Did you realize your shitty abuse of the English language in your last post failed to impress me so now you are going to try to dazzle me with the legal thinking and rational equivalent of an undercooked bagel?

[Image: 45854cfe0bf05cc9c54bd72823aa4da2.gif]

I have no desire to impress you, 90% of the time only filth comes out of your mouth which has no bearing on the conversation. Like the above.

Quote:The fact that laws are man-made and largely conceptual does not mean they don't apply to you and that you are not subject to them and their enforcement. You are required by law to pay taxes, making them compulsory by definition, in the same way that, stopping at a red light is not fucking optional in the eyes of the law. The fact they are compulsory does not make you less free, and the fact you can choose to not pay or run the red light does not make them any less compulsory.

And again...even if that was NOT the case your comparison is still stupid and fallacous and you remain, as you have been since the start, entirely wrong.

required... by something which doesn't actually exist.

[Image: giphy.gif]

To be perfectly honest right now you've just reminded me of someone I used to work with a long time ago. All bent out of shape about authority.

Quote:No that is EXACTLY the fucking problem. You made a stupid, ignorant, and fallacious comparison which has been shown to be fallacious and factually incorrect in MULTIPLE goddamn ways and you don't have the balls or the brains to admit you are wrong and abandon it. You just keep digging your hole deeper and now it's alarmingly grave shaped.
Almost your ENTIRE argument is based on this fallacious defense which is why it's been so easy for me to blast it out of the water again and again and again.

This is only true if your definition of freedom is "I can do whatever I want whenever I want with no repercussions and anything else is not freedom" because as I said above the fact you are required by law to do things does NOT make you a slave or violate your freedom.
Anarchism or GTFO basically, and that is a laughably, LAUGHABLY, simplistic and childish view of freedom.

You keep trying to talk about how I'M not able to grasp things yet it's me that has to repeatedly and consistently hold your hand through explanations up to giving your ass individual definitions so you can have a basic understanding of what i'm talking about.

Except that in the actual case we are actually talking about that is actually not goddamn accurate at all. If you refuse to pay taxes you will be arrested, jailed, and forced to pay them. If you don't give money to the Church you will.....still go to Heaven when you die because you are still a Catholic even if you don't because it's not a motherfucking criteria to avoid hell.

Do you think if you just take clearly explained things and make them as vague as you possibly can you think I will forget that I've already explained how it works to you? Multiple times.
You have passed the point of just being dense and goddamn stupid and you are now in intentionally dishonest territory.

You know at of all the things here, there is one thing really. The government has to use force to get people to pay taxes, while the church gets people to willingly give them their money.



Quote:That's strange given earlier you said you obey laws and pay taxes because you like what that gets you. Now it's suddenly outta fear? Why it's almost like you can't keep your bullshit together. Drinking Beverage

I obey laws, those that I do obey, not out of fear of repercussions but because I have lived places where the Rule of Law has broken down. I'd rather avoid that personally. Also, I live in Canada and my government does, for the most part, a damn fine job in my opinion and I'm not really afraid of government. Cultural difference I suppose.

A misleading jeer.

Quote:This has utterly no conceivable relevance to anything I have talked about at all, as I have never talked at all about taking action against people of any kind either religious or political. In fact, I don't mention anything political at all until you bumble fucked your way into your idiotic and fallacious comparison. You're basically pulling objections out of your ass for points I never made. Amusingly enough most of the ACTUAL points I have made stand uncontested.

If they stand uncontested they probably had no actual relevance to our conversation.

Quote:Another tangent with no relevance. Good, you almost went an entire post without one of those.

See when I believed your 'points' held no relevance I simply never replied to them. You on the other hand in the belief that this remark held no relevance went on a spree of verbal slander. Which is at least half of what every post you make contains.

Quote:No, they are not, they are designed to facilitate a fair and just society in which to live. "Laws protect our general safety, and ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other people, by organizations, and by the government itself. We have laws to help provide for our general safety."

I'm pretty sure its morally upright people who facilitate a fair and just society. Laws aren't going to stop you from getting mugged, only two things can stop you from getting mugged. Yourself or an outside force.

God gets a hell of a lot of flack for not stopping all the evil in the world, yet where are the laws? Aren't laws supposed to stop people from doing bad things?

Quote:If you think laws are just a form of control over people, and that they are nothing more than illusions you are welcome to stop paying taxes and write me a long letter, which I won't read, about how imaginary you find your jail cell to be.
When D-grade philosophy meets reality, reality always wins.





You know there are perfectly legal ways not to pay your taxes.

Quote:PS: Don't think I'm not keeping track of all the stupid shit you assert that I have proven wrong which you have failed to acknowledge. For example, if your gonna be stupid enough to call me a conspiracy theorist for claiming the church knowingly shuffled child rapists around to shield them from prosecution you better have the fucking balls to man up when I drop the evidence in your fucking lap.
If you are gonna bring that weak ass shit into my kitchen you better be willing to chow down son.

Hm, can you actually pinpoint where I said that you need to give money to the church to be a Catholic? Because what I'm pretty sure what I actually said is that you need to follow the church, which I probably added in there that you also need to follow the Pope, and that was where the relevance of the long history lesson came in, of former Catholics who did not want to follow the Pope.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 11:49 PM
RE: Pope says spreading fake news is a sin
(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You're wrong because I said you are!
No, you are not wrong because I say you are you are wrong because you say things that are factually inaccurate or flat out dishonest and I have spent MULTIPLE posts demonstrating that again and again.

Not claiming. Not asserting. Fuckin' DEMONSTRATING.

Take your little strawman and your attempts at dishonestly misrepresenting my posts and shove it right up the place you get your "arguments".

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I have no desire to impress you
Oh? So that shitty emo prose a few posts back was for your own benefit? You realize that's actually more pathetic not less right? Or is your lack of desire to impress me the reason you don't present anything rational, internally consistent, or you know.....factually fucking accurate? At this point finding one of those things in your posts actually would impress me.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  90% of the time only filth comes out of your mouth
And now you are just outright lying. Wonderful. My use of profanity is irrelevant and has not once prevented me from accurately demonstrating the flaws and fallacies in your thinking.
I swear a lot, but I also go through almost every "argument" you have made point for point and explain why they are fallacious or inaccurate and I often provide outside citation to back up my arguments. Meanwhile, you can barely form a cogent argument most of the time, that is when your not busy running the goal posts around.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  which has no bearing on the conversation.
Ya sorry skippy, I can't think of a single cogent point you have made that I have not addressed and that was after I repeatedly asked you to stick to the points I was making instead of going off on your own little tangents. I've been on point this entire conversation and have been trying to keep you there as my post history shows.

Nice try though.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  required... by something which doesn't actually exist.
And you are still making the idiotic argument that because something is man-made or conceptual that it "doesn't exist". Society exists and it requires participants to follow the laws as written in accordance with the values of that society.

Even if they "didn't actually exist" they are still enforced, making your argument still irrelevant and childish on a practical level even if I granted your premise. Which I don't.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  [Image: giphy.gif]
Yes to an idiot like yourself who doesn't understand how Society functions or why what the Rule of Law is and why it's vital I suppose it would seem absurd. In the same way a Space Shuttle would to a chimp.
The fact you find something absurd doesn't make it not factually accurate, maybe you're just not smart enough to grasp why it's not absurd.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  To be perfectly honest right now you've just reminded me of someone I used to work with a long time ago. All bent out of shape about authority.
[Image: 6a012876c6c7fb970c01b7c7a989e5970b-400wi]
(20-12-2016 07:03 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Also, I live in Canada and my government does, for the most part, a damn fine job in my opinion
Yes, clearly I'm bent out of shape about authority.

You're a fucking moron kid. Holy. Shit.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You know at of all the things here, there is one thing really.
Actually, there are many things there, every one of which you avoided addressing AGAIN. Shocking.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The government has to use force to get people to pay taxes, while the church gets people to willingly give them their money.
WHICH WOULD MAKE COMPARING THE TWO LIKE YOU DID RATHER FUCKING STUPID WOULDN'T IT?! RIGHT?!? RIIIIIIGHT?!

You actually just ate your own argument and you didn't have the brains to realize it.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If they stand uncontested they probably had no actual relevance to our conversation.
Considering I have to walk you through my points multiple times before you even understand them enough to (sometimes) make a flailing attempt at a counter-argument I'd say you are uniquely unqualified to make that determination.

This is also just another bald faced lie as they stand uncontested because you have been too busy propping up strawman to swat at. From talking about "taking actions against religious people" to claims I'm" trying to make them leave their religion" to three or four other claims you have made about things I've never even hinted at let alone actually said.
You also have been MORE than happy to talk about some of those points until I prove them and then your balls drop off, make a run for it, and you go sprinting off after them with not a word said. Like your implication that I'm a conspiracy theorist for believing the church shuffled rapists around knowingly for example. You had stuff to say about that till I provided you with evidence, then like a canary in a coal mine your fucking beaking stopped.
There have been two arguments going on, the one between you and me on this forum and the one in your head, and I'm not privy to your goddamn delusions son.


(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  See when I believed your 'points' held no relevance I simply never replied to them.
Right so a bunch of evidence of the Church knowingly moving child rapists around has no relevance to a discussion on the Churches handling of child rapists but your stupid beliefs about "freedom" and "laws not existing" does? Oh how about your "The government can go fuck itself" contextless non-sequitur post, that one surely had more relevance to child rape than the goddamn evidence of child rape which didn't get a goddamn reply.
How about when you raised the point that ONLY a Papel decree could be responsible for the covers ups and I showed you evidence that that is not the case at all and you ..never said anything about it again? What, does something that directly addresses your claim not count as "relevant" to your fucking claim? Oooooooohhhhhh I get it.... anything that proves you wrong is not relevant even if it's a direct response to your claims. Go fuck your own face you dishonest piece of shit.

Fuck off you amateur, if you have to complain don't complain about things that YOU are the actual perpetrator of.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You on the other hand in the belief that this remark held no relevance went on a spree of verbal slander.
Slander would require something in there to not be true.Drinking Beverage

Oh and I'd go back and read a few of your own posts before you start bitching about conduct fucko.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Which is at least half of what every post you make contains.
Earlier it was 90% Drinking Beverage Rolleyes

The other half is the point where I repeatedly demonstrate why you are wrong, but oh ya no you focus on the bad words and ignore the facts and evidence. That will get ya far.


(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I'm pretty sure its morally upright people who facilitate a fair and just society.
And what is one of many things that helps to hinder those people who are NOT morally upright? The enforcement of LAWS. The Rule of Law.

Slavery existed in the US until the 13th Amendment made it....against the law to own people as property you silly twat. How were the morally upright people doing facilitating a just society for the hundreds of years before the abolition of slavery? Not too fuckin' well eh mate? I think I hear the Suffragettes in the background......


(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Laws aren't going to stop you from getting mugged, only two things can stop you from getting mugged. Yourself or an outside force.
An outside force? Like oh, I dunno...the Police? Now, what do they enforce again....?

Oh ya. THE LAW.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Aren't laws supposed to stop people from doing bad things?
Nope nor have I ever said that. Which you would fuckin' know if you were not busy trying to misrepresent my position and erecting strawmen. Let me post that link for you again and try to read it this time:
"Laws protect our general safety, and ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other people, by organizations, and by the government itself. We have laws to help provide for our general safety."

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You know there are perfectly legal ways not to pay your taxes.
Quick question skippy: why would you need a legal way to not pay your taxes if they are not compulsory like you claimed they weren't? Why can't you just like...stop paying them? Drinking Beverage
Fucking. Stupid.

But to answer your question: yup I do know that. And it's irrelevant as I've made it perfectly clear several times over I'm talking about just deciding you don't want to pay them anymore and won't. Why am I still having to explain painfully basic things to you? It must be really easy to say my shit has no relevance to the conversation when you don't even understand what I am saying.



(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Hm, can you actually pinpoint where I said that you need to give money to the church to be a Catholic?
Oh fun we are pretending that we haven't been talking about funding and taxation for the last two pages. This is an exciting and in no way anticipated development from you. Rolleyes

To answer your evasion though I said that Catholics did not have support the Church through funding (and that it's currently immoral to do so) to which you responded by invoking the theological concept of Fides Ecclesiae that you HAVE to support them to be Catholic which I showed to be incorrect. You also tried, and repeatedly failed, to compare it to participation in the government, and our main points of argument were both the funding thereof.

I have made it explicitly clear from the beginning that I have been talking almost exclusively about the tithe and to a lesser degree attendance. My entire argument has been about how those who knowingly fund an organization that protects and aids child rapists WHEN THEY DO NOT HAVE TO DO SO are morally culpable for those crimes and that they would continue to be Catholic even if they stopped funding the Church. You have consistently and repeatedly argued the opposite.
I've made the argument that they should stop funding the church cause it's immoral and they don't have to to be Catholic and you have said the opposite. Jesus H Fucking Christ if you failed to grasp even THAT most basic part of my argument then everything you have said has been utterly pointless and you prove you really ARE a fucking idiot cunt.

PS: I'll also point out how fucking mindbogglingly stupid it is to quote me complaining about you refusing to concede points when they have been proven beyond doubt, to quote an example I gave, and then to refuse to concede it and entirely ignore it and ask a question entirely unrelated to what you quoted.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
21-12-2016, 01:40 AM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2016 01:44 AM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Pope says spreading fake news is a sin
(20-12-2016 11:49 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You're wrong because I said you are!
No, you are not wrong because I say you are you are wrong because you say things that are factually inaccurate or flat out dishonest and I have spent MULTIPLE posts demonstrating that again and again.

Not claiming. Not asserting. Fuckin' DEMONSTRATING.

Take your little strawman and your attempts at dishonestly misrepresenting my posts and shove it right up the place you get your "arguments".

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I have no desire to impress you
Oh? So that shitty emo prose a few posts back was for your own benefit? You realize that's actually more pathetic not less right? Or is your lack of desire to impress me the reason you don't present anything rational, internally consistent, or you know.....factually fucking accurate? At this point finding one of those things in your posts actually would impress me.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  90% of the time only filth comes out of your mouth
And now you are just outright lying. Wonderful. My use of profanity is irrelevant and has not once prevented me from accurately demonstrating the flaws and fallacies in your thinking.
I swear a lot, but I also go through almost every "argument" you have made point for point and explain why they are fallacious or inaccurate and I often provide outside citation to back up my arguments. Meanwhile, you can barely form a cogent argument most of the time, that is when your not busy running the goal posts around.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  which has no bearing on the conversation.
Ya sorry skippy, I can't think of a single cogent point you have made that I have not addressed and that was after I repeatedly asked you to stick to the points I was making instead of going off on your own little tangents. I've been on point this entire conversation and have been trying to keep you there as my post history shows.

Nice try though.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  required... by something which doesn't actually exist.
And you are still making the idiotic argument that because something is man-made or conceptual that it "doesn't exist". Society exists and it requires participants to follow the laws as written in accordance with the values of that society.

Even if they "didn't actually exist" they are still enforced, making your argument still irrelevant and childish on a practical level even if I granted your premise. Which I don't.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  [Image: giphy.gif]
Yes to an idiot like yourself who doesn't understand how Society functions or why what the Rule of Law is and why it's vital I suppose it would seem absurd. In the same way a Space Shuttle would to a chimp.
The fact you find something absurd doesn't make it not factually accurate, maybe you're just not smart enough to grasp why it's not absurd.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  To be perfectly honest right now you've just reminded me of someone I used to work with a long time ago. All bent out of shape about authority.
[Image: 6a012876c6c7fb970c01b7c7a989e5970b-400wi]
(20-12-2016 07:03 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Also, I live in Canada and my government does, for the most part, a damn fine job in my opinion
Yes, clearly I'm bent out of shape about authority.

You're a fucking moron kid. Holy. Shit.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You know at of all the things here, there is one thing really.
Actually, there are many things there, every one of which you avoided addressing AGAIN. Shocking.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The government has to use force to get people to pay taxes, while the church gets people to willingly give them their money.
WHICH WOULD MAKE COMPARING THE TWO LIKE YOU DID RATHER FUCKING STUPID WOULDN'T IT?! RIGHT?!? RIIIIIIGHT?!

You actually just ate your own argument and you didn't have the brains to realize it.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If they stand uncontested they probably had no actual relevance to our conversation.
Considering I have to walk you through my points multiple times before you even understand them enough to (sometimes) make a flailing attempt at a counter-argument I'd say you are uniquely unqualified to make that determination.

This is also just another bald faced lie as they stand uncontested because you have been too busy propping up strawman to swat at. From talking about "taking actions against religious people" to claims I'm" trying to make them leave their religion" to three or four other claims you have made about things I've never even hinted at let alone actually said.
You also have been MORE than happy to talk about some of those points until I prove them and then your balls drop off, make a run for it, and you go sprinting off after them with not a word said. Like your implication that I'm a conspiracy theorist for believing the church shuffled rapists around knowingly for example. You had stuff to say about that till I provided you with evidence, then like a canary in a coal mine your fucking beaking stopped.
There have been two arguments going on, the one between you and me on this forum and the one in your head, and I'm not privy to your goddamn delusions son.


(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  See when I believed your 'points' held no relevance I simply never replied to them.
Right so a bunch of evidence of the Church knowingly moving child rapists around has no relevance to a discussion on the Churches handling of child rapists but your stupid beliefs about "freedom" and "laws not existing" does? Oh how about your "The government can go fuck itself" contextless non-sequitur post, that one surely had more relevance to child rape than the goddamn evidence of child rape which didn't get a goddamn reply.
How about when you raised the point that ONLY a Papel decree could be responsible for the covers ups and I showed you evidence that that is not the case at all and you ..never said anything about it again? What, does something that directly addresses your claim not count as "relevant" to your fucking claim? Oooooooohhhhhh I get it.... anything that proves you wrong is not relevant even if it's a direct response to your claims. Go fuck your own face you dishonest piece of shit.

Fuck off you amateur, if you have to complain don't complain about things that YOU are the actual perpetrator of.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You on the other hand in the belief that this remark held no relevance went on a spree of verbal slander.
Slander would require something in there to not be true.Drinking Beverage

Oh and I'd go back and read a few of your own posts before you start bitching about conduct fucko.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Which is at least half of what every post you make contains.
Earlier it was 90% Drinking Beverage Rolleyes

The other half is the point where I repeatedly demonstrate why you are wrong, but oh ya no you focus on the bad words and ignore the facts and evidence. That will get ya far.


(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I'm pretty sure its morally upright people who facilitate a fair and just society.
And what is one of many things that helps to hinder those people who are NOT morally upright? The enforcement of LAWS. The Rule of Law.

Slavery existed in the US until the 13th Amendment made it....against the law to own people as property you silly twat. How were the morally upright people doing facilitating a just society for the hundreds of years before the abolition of slavery? Not too fuckin' well eh mate? I think I hear the Suffragettes in the background......


(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Laws aren't going to stop you from getting mugged, only two things can stop you from getting mugged. Yourself or an outside force.
An outside force? Like oh, I dunno...the Police? Now, what do they enforce again....?

Oh ya. THE LAW.

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Aren't laws supposed to stop people from doing bad things?
Nope nor have I ever said that. Which you would fuckin' know if you were not busy trying to misrepresent my position and erecting strawmen. Let me post that link for you again and try to read it this time:
"Laws protect our general safety, and ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other people, by organizations, and by the government itself. We have laws to help provide for our general safety."

(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You know there are perfectly legal ways not to pay your taxes.
Quick question skippy: why would you need a legal way to not pay your taxes if they are not compulsory like you claimed they weren't? Why can't you just like...stop paying them? Drinking Beverage
Fucking. Stupid.

But to answer your question: yup I do know that. And it's irrelevant as I've made it perfectly clear several times over I'm talking about just deciding you don't want to pay them anymore and won't. Why am I still having to explain painfully basic things to you? It must be really easy to say my shit has no relevance to the conversation when you don't even understand what I am saying.



(20-12-2016 08:44 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Hm, can you actually pinpoint where I said that you need to give money to the church to be a Catholic?
Oh fun we are pretending that we haven't been talking about funding and taxation for the last two pages. This is an exciting and in no way anticipated development from you. Rolleyes

To answer your evasion though I said that Catholics did not have support the Church through funding (and that it's currently immoral to do so) to which you responded by invoking the theological concept of Fides Ecclesiae that you HAVE to support them to be Catholic which I showed to be incorrect. You also tried, and repeatedly failed, to compare it to participation in the government, and our main points of argument were both the funding thereof.

I have made it explicitly clear from the beginning that I have been talking almost exclusively about the tithe and to a lesser degree attendance. My entire argument has been about how those who knowingly fund an organization that protects and aids child rapists WHEN THEY DO NOT HAVE TO DO SO are morally culpable for those crimes and that they would continue to be Catholic even if they stopped funding the Church. You have consistently and repeatedly argued the opposite.
I've made the argument that they should stop funding the church cause it's immoral and they don't have to to be Catholic and you have said the opposite. Jesus H Fucking Christ if you failed to grasp even THAT most basic part of my argument then everything you have said has been utterly pointless and you prove you really ARE a fucking idiot cunt.

PS: I'll also point out how fucking mindbogglingly stupid it is to quote me complaining about you refusing to concede points when they have been proven beyond doubt, to quote an example I gave, and then to refuse to concede it and entirely ignore it and ask a question entirely unrelated to what you quoted.

Your entire argument is invalid, because if there are legal ways to not pay your taxes which you just agreed with me that there are. Then taxes are not compulsory now are they?

Also I really didn't ask your opinion on what I said, I asked you to pinpoint, where I said that you had to give money to the church in order to be Catholic.

I'll also point out the biggest contradiction in your argument tithing. You see, at multiple points in this entire thread you go on about how its individual dioceses/bishops/archbishops that are/were responsible for this. So if its the individual diocese and not the Pope, then it would be very easy for a Catholic to say 'its not my diocese/bishop/archbishop!'

Furthermore I'm going to drop a line in how similar that line of thinking is to Police Brutality, where we pay our taxes to the government which aids and protects people who abuse their powers (often resulting in death or severe injury especially when regarding the homeless) so therefore we're morally culpable for those crimes. And YOU my friend, just agreed that there are legal ways that you and I could stop paying our taxes.

I'll just take my victory here thank you.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 11:34 AM
RE: Pope says spreading fake news is a sin
(21-12-2016 01:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Your entire argument is invalid, because if there are legal ways to not pay your taxes which you just agreed with me that there are.
Except that in the very next sentence after I agree that there are ways to go about not paying taxes I bloody explain why your point is not valid, and in the sentences immediately before I point out how your arguments AGAIN are not consistent with each other.
"Your argument is invalid because laws are not real, but here are some laws you can follow so my argument is valid." I feel like I'm trying to kick you off a see-saw at this point your so flip-flopity.

Lets take a closer look:
(21-12-2016 01:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Your entire argument is invalid
Except that it's not because I will reiterate I'm talking EXCLUSIVELY about just choosing to not pay taxes and then stopping. Which is NOT a legal way to get around paying taxes, which will land you in jail for tax evasion, because that's the goddamn law, which is the fucking definition of compulsory.

Why am I still explaining what compulsory means?

(21-12-2016 01:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  there are legal ways to not pay your taxes
I should have specified earlier that when I agreed I just meant specific taxes because you really can't avoid paying all taxes. The vast majority of your day to day purchases and activities are all taxed and there are no ways around that. Gas tax, sales tax, alcohol taxes, the list goes on and on. All compulsory.

Like I said in an earlier post: you can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

(21-12-2016 01:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Your entire argument is invalid,Then taxes are not compulsory now are they?
Wrong. They are compulsory as taxation is required by law, through very specific laws and more generally under the 16th Amendment. The fact that there are other laws that exist does not make these laws, not laws. Individuals are still required by law to file and pay income tax, even if the amount they have to pay is effectively zero. The law is not binary, it's not one switch on one switch off.

For shit sake boy, if it was not compulsory you wouldn't have to find legal ways around it. You could just ...you know...stop paying it. But you can't. Because you will go to jail. BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING COMPULSORY!

Your comparison is STILL fallacious and stupid. You accidentally admitted as much in the last post I quoted though, surprise fucking surprise, you are ignoring it.

(21-12-2016 01:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Also I really didn't ask your opinion on what I said, I asked you to pinpoint, where I said that you had to give money to the church in order to be Catholic.
That would be the moment you responded to my argument that moral Catholics should stop supporting the Church financially with the argument that the Church IS the Faith and to be Catholic you have to support the Church.

"Basically you can't BE a Catholic if you don't support the Church because the Church IS the Faith."

In direct response to me saying that Catholics should stop supporting the Church through funding. Now this could be an example of your utter lack of reading comprehension skills (which is what I pointed out at several points at the time) however...... since you have continued to expound on that foundation in several arguments (dispite my protests) it's very clear you knew what I was talking about.
Which means you are backed into a corner and trying to play word games to weasel your way out.

(21-12-2016 01:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I'll also point out the biggest contradiction in your argument tithing.
[Image: tumblr_mka7s4YdT21qdf6w8o1_500.gif]

(21-12-2016 01:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You see, at multiple points in this entire thread you go on about how its individual dioceses/bishops/archbishops that are/were responsible for this. So if its the individual diocese and not the Pope, then it would be very easy for a Catholic to say 'its not my diocese/bishop/archbishop!'
[Image: giphy.gif]
You don't even read 90% of my replies, do you?

What you just wrote is what's known as a "cop out", an excuse for not doing anything. So let me light your stupid little excuse up.

Prior to 2001 most cover ups were instigated at the local level and if it stayed that way you might have a point. It would still be a shitty cop out excuse to not take action but it would be at least par for the course and not terribly unusual. However that stopped being true once cases of sexual abuse had to be reported to Rome, again in a law (Oh shit I said law!) passed in 2001. At that point, the Church hierarchy continued to protect and aid child rapists and it is STILL doing so today.

So no, prior to the law being passed sure you could maybe make that argument (though I'd like to think "children being raped" is enough to break people's apathy) but after 2001 you can't. The abuse continues, the shuffling of priests to avoid prosecution continues, and it's not a secret.

Oh and by the way....you didn't point out a contradiction. Dumbass.

(21-12-2016 01:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Furthermore I'm going to drop a line in how similar that line of thinking is to Police Brutality, where we pay our taxes to the government which aids and protects people who abuse their powers.
[Image: are-you-serious.gif?w=630]
Are you fucking serious? SERIOUSLY?! Your BACK to making the SAME goddamn fallacious comparison? Only it's MORE stupid now? HOW IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE.

So much stupid to unpack I don't even know where to start:
  • Comparing an entirely voluntary system of rendering money to one that is enforced with jail time, violence, and the forcible taking of said money is STILL fallacious.
  • Comaparing the fact you can just choose to stop giving to the Church with the notion that if you jump through certain hoops you can find laws that allow you to get around paying A FRACTION of your taxes is also fallacious.
  • Comparing the churches active and continual covering up of child abuse to police brutality is also a fallacious comparison.
  • That is also not taking into account the fact that the people appoint their members of government so if they behave badly they can be removed, the same is not true for Church officials making your comparison even MORE, goddamn fallacious.
The two are not comparable, they were not the first time you tried and they didn't magically become not fallacious on your dozenth attempt.

(21-12-2016 01:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  And YOU my friend, just agreed that there are legal ways that you and I could stop paying our taxes.
Some of them but not all, and just stopping paying them is not one of them.
And I was arguing that Catholics can just stop giving the church money with no repercussions. You're the idiot that brought the government into this discussion with a stupid fallacious comparison. I have repeatedly demonstrated exactly why it's irrelevant, fallacious, and doesn't apply to the Church tithe.
You also argued a few posts back that my position was flawed because I was relying on laws, which according to you don't exist, but now here we are with your entire position hinging on laws.... that you think don't exist.

PICK A FUCKING POSITION ALREADY. I feel like I'm in a debate with four separate people.

(21-12-2016 01:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I'll just take my victory here thank you.
[Image: 1378095315_laughter.gif]
Of the, let's say, 18ish or so individual points, criticisms, and rebuttals I made in JUST THAT ONE POST you respond to a single one and ignore every single other one and you think that's enough to "win"? You think you can run like a little bitch from 90% of a post and claim victory? Especially when you are actually wrong about the other 10%. Really? El Oh El.
1-18 is a "victory" for you is it? Setting that bar low, and still failing to clear it. Nice work lad.

Oh sorry, I suppose given that I completely dismantled your 1 it's 0-18 for that post now. For that SINGLE post.
[Image: giphy.gif]

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
21-12-2016, 07:27 PM
RE: Pope says spreading fake news is a sin
(21-12-2016 11:34 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Except that in the very next sentence after I agree that there are ways to go about not paying taxes I bloody explain why your point is not valid, and in the sentences immediately before I point out how your arguments AGAIN are not consistent with each other.
"Your argument is invalid because laws are not real, but here are some laws you can follow so my argument is valid." I feel like I'm trying to kick you off a see-saw at this point your so flip-flopity.

Lets take a closer look:

Except that it's not because I will reiterate I'm talking EXCLUSIVELY about just choosing to not pay taxes and then stopping. Which is NOT a legal way to get around paying taxes, which will land you in jail for tax evasion, because that's the goddamn law, which is the fucking definition of compulsory.

Why am I still explaining what compulsory means?

Because you can't seem to see the forest.

Required by law I understand that, but is it required by law when there are other laws that make it so you don't have to pay taxes? If there were no other laws then it wouldn't be legal. But it is legal, and so in reality its not that it is required by law but more so that we are given options.

So then the choice to pay taxes are our own, we choose which tree we hug. And we can hug the tree that doesn't pay taxes if we wanted to. Because there is nothing forcing (keeping in mind that laws are entirely figments of the imagination in the first place) us to hug the tree that pays taxes.

Quote:I should have specified earlier that when I agreed I just meant specific taxes because you really can't avoid paying all taxes. The vast majority of your day to day purchases and activities are all taxed and there are no ways around that. Gas tax, sales tax, alcohol taxes, the list goes on and on. All compulsory.

Like I said in an earlier post: you can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

We responded to this later.

Quote:Wrong. They are compulsory as taxation is required by law, through very specific laws and more generally under the 16th Amendment. The fact that there are other laws that exist does not make these laws, not laws. Individuals are still required by law to file and pay income tax, even if the amount they have to pay is effectively zero. The law is not binary, it's not one switch on one switch off.

For shit sake boy, if it was not compulsory you wouldn't have to find legal ways around it. You could just ...you know...stop paying it. But you can't. Because you will go to jail. BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING COMPULSORY!

Your comparison is STILL fallacious and stupid. You accidentally admitted as much in the last post I quoted though, surprise fucking surprise, you are ignoring it.

Something that you can get out of isn't compulsory then is it?

(21-12-2016 01:40 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Also I really didn't ask your opinion on what I said, I asked you to pinpoint, where I said that you had to give money to the church in order to be Catholic.
That would be the moment you responded to my argument that moral Catholics should stop supporting the Church financially with the argument that the Church IS the Faith and to be Catholic you have to support the Church.

"Basically you can't BE a Catholic if you don't support the Church because the Church IS the Faith."

In direct response to me saying that Catholics should stop supporting the Church through funding. Now this could be an example of your utter lack of reading comprehension skills (which is what I pointed out at several points at the time) however...... since you have continued to expound on that foundation in several arguments (dispite my protests) it's very clear you knew what I was talking about.
Which means you are backed into a corner and trying to play word games to weasel your way out.[/quote]

My reading comprehension was just fine.

you said

(15-12-2016 07:53 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I'm talking about voluntary participation and funding of an organization (the church)

Let me enhance that for you.

(15-12-2016 07:53 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  voluntary participation,

Have you any inclination what you just said? Participation means a lot of things, from attending mass to merely having an opinion. Now support, support means many things, it could be from attending mass to just having a positive opinion about the church, and yes you could also financially support the church. You do not have to financially support the church to be a Catholic, and I never said you did. But you do have to support the church!

Quote:You don't even read 90% of my replies, do you?

What you just wrote is what's known as a "cop out", an excuse for not doing anything. So let me light your stupid little excuse up.

Yeah, I know what it is, I never said it wasn't an excuse.

Quote:Prior to 2001 most cover ups were instigated at the local level and if it stayed that way you might have a point. It would still be a shitty cop out excuse to not take action but it would be at least par for the course and not terribly unusual. However that stopped being true once cases of sexual abuse had to be reported to Rome, again in a law (Oh shit I said law!) passed in 2001. At that point, the Church hierarchy continued to protect and aid child rapists and it is STILL doing so today.

So no, prior to the law being passed sure you could maybe make that argument (though I'd like to think "children being raped" is enough to break people's apathy) but after 2001 you can't. The abuse continues, the shuffling of priests to avoid prosecution continues, and it's not a secret.

Oh and by the way....you didn't point out a contradiction. Dumbass.

Why are you explaining this to me?

[Image: 4493533.jpg]

Quote:Are you fucking serious? SERIOUSLY?! Your BACK to making the SAME goddamn fallacious comparison? Only it's MORE stupid now? HOW IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE.

So much stupid to unpack I don't even know where to start:
  • Comparing an entirely voluntary system of rendering money to one that is enforced with jail time, violence, and the forcible taking of said money is STILL fallacious.
  • Comaparing the fact you can just choose to stop giving to the Church with the notion that if you jump through certain hoops you can find laws that allow you to get around paying A FRACTION of your taxes is also fallacious.
  • Comparing the churches active and continual covering up of child abuse to police brutality is also a fallacious comparison.
  • That is also not taking into account the fact that the people appoint their members of government so if they behave badly they can be removed, the same is not true for Church officials making your comparison even MORE, goddamn fallacious.
The two are not comparable, they were not the first time you tried and they didn't magically become not fallacious on your dozenth attempt.

I'm sorry who is paying their taxes even though they have a perfectly legal way not to pay taxes?

Quote:Some of them but not all, and just stopping paying them is not one of them.
And I was arguing that Catholics can just stop giving the church money with no repercussions. You're the idiot that brought the government into this discussion with a stupid fallacious comparison. I have repeatedly demonstrated exactly why it's irrelevant, fallacious, and doesn't apply to the Church tithe.
You also argued a few posts back that my position was flawed because I was relying on laws, which according to you don't exist, but now here we are with your entire position hinging on laws.... that you think don't exist.

PICK A FUCKING POSITION ALREADY. I feel like I'm in a debate with four separate people.

You and I know both know that when we talked about paying taxes, we only ever meant the one. Which you and I both agreed on that we both have a legal means not to pay our taxes, you know, just the one not the one for the can of peas you buy at the grocery store.

Quote:[Image: 1378095315_laughter.gif]
Of the, let's say, 18ish or so individual points, criticisms, and rebuttals I made in JUST THAT ONE POST you respond to a single one and ignore every single other one and you think that's enough to "win"? You think you can run like a little bitch from 90% of a post and claim victory? Especially when you are actually wrong about the other 10%. Really? El Oh El.
1-18 is a "victory" for you is it? Setting that bar low, and still failing to clear it. Nice work lad.

Oh sorry, I suppose given that I completely dismantled your 1 it's 0-18 for that post now. For that SINGLE post.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 07:27 PM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2016 07:33 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Pope says spreading fake news is a sin
(21-12-2016 11:34 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Except that in the very next sentence after I agree that there are ways to go about not paying taxes I bloody explain why your point is not valid, and in the sentences immediately before I point out how your arguments AGAIN are not consistent with each other.
"Your argument is invalid because laws are not real, but here are some laws you can follow so my argument is valid." I feel like I'm trying to kick you off a see-saw at this point your so flip-flopity.

Lets take a closer look:

Except that it's not because I will reiterate I'm talking EXCLUSIVELY about just choosing to not pay taxes and then stopping. Which is NOT a legal way to get around paying taxes, which will land you in jail for tax evasion, because that's the goddamn law, which is the fucking definition of compulsory.

Why am I still explaining what compulsory means?

Because you can't seem to see the forest.

Required by law I understand that, but is it required by law when there are other laws that make it so you don't have to pay taxes? If there were no other laws then it wouldn't be legal. But it is legal, and so in reality its not that it is required by law but more so that we are given options.

So then the choice to pay taxes are our own, we choose which tree we hug. And we can hug the tree that doesn't pay taxes if we wanted to. Because there is nothing forcing (keeping in mind that laws are entirely figments of the imagination in the first place) us to hug the tree that pays taxes.

Quote:I should have specified earlier that when I agreed I just meant specific taxes because you really can't avoid paying all taxes. The vast majority of your day to day purchases and activities are all taxed and there are no ways around that. Gas tax, sales tax, alcohol taxes, the list goes on and on. All compulsory.

Like I said in an earlier post: you can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

We responded to this later.

Quote:Wrong. They are compulsory as taxation is required by law, through very specific laws and more generally under the 16th Amendment. The fact that there are other laws that exist does not make these laws, not laws. Individuals are still required by law to file and pay income tax, even if the amount they have to pay is effectively zero. The law is not binary, it's not one switch on one switch off.

For shit sake boy, if it was not compulsory you wouldn't have to find legal ways around it. You could just ...you know...stop paying it. But you can't. Because you will go to jail. BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING COMPULSORY!

Your comparison is STILL fallacious and stupid. You accidentally admitted as much in the last post I quoted though, surprise fucking surprise, you are ignoring it.

Something that you can get out of isn't compulsory then is it?

Quote:That would be the moment you responded to my argument that moral Catholics should stop supporting the Church financially with the argument that the Church IS the Faith and to be Catholic you have to support the Church.

"Basically you can't BE a Catholic if you don't support the Church because the Church IS the Faith."

In direct response to me saying that Catholics should stop supporting the Church through funding. Now this could be an example of your utter lack of reading comprehension skills (which is what I pointed out at several points at the time) however...... since you have continued to expound on that foundation in several arguments (dispite my protests) it's very clear you knew what I was talking about.
Which means you are backed into a corner and trying to play word games to weasel your way out.

My reading comprehension was just fine.

you said

(15-12-2016 07:53 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I'm talking about voluntary participation and funding of an organization (the church)

Let me enhance that for you.

(15-12-2016 07:53 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  voluntary participation,

Have you any inclination what you just said? Participation means a lot of things, from attending mass to merely having an opinion. Now support, support means many things, it could be from attending mass to just having a positive opinion about the church, and yes you could also financially support the church. You do not have to financially support the church to be a Catholic, and I never said you did. But you do have to support the church!

Quote:You don't even read 90% of my replies, do you?

What you just wrote is what's known as a "cop out", an excuse for not doing anything. So let me light your stupid little excuse up.

Yeah, I know what it is, I never said it wasn't an excuse.

Quote:Prior to 2001 most cover ups were instigated at the local level and if it stayed that way you might have a point. It would still be a shitty cop out excuse to not take action but it would be at least par for the course and not terribly unusual. However that stopped being true once cases of sexual abuse had to be reported to Rome, again in a law (Oh shit I said law!) passed in 2001. At that point, the Church hierarchy continued to protect and aid child rapists and it is STILL doing so today.

So no, prior to the law being passed sure you could maybe make that argument (though I'd like to think "children being raped" is enough to break people's apathy) but after 2001 you can't. The abuse continues, the shuffling of priests to avoid prosecution continues, and it's not a secret.

Oh and by the way....you didn't point out a contradiction. Dumbass.

Why are you explaining this to me?

[Image: 4493533.jpg]

Quote:Are you fucking serious? SERIOUSLY?! Your BACK to making the SAME goddamn fallacious comparison? Only it's MORE stupid now? HOW IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE.

So much stupid to unpack I don't even know where to start:
  • Comparing an entirely voluntary system of rendering money to one that is enforced with jail time, violence, and the forcible taking of said money is STILL fallacious.
  • Comaparing the fact you can just choose to stop giving to the Church with the notion that if you jump through certain hoops you can find laws that allow you to get around paying A FRACTION of your taxes is also fallacious.
  • Comparing the churches active and continual covering up of child abuse to police brutality is also a fallacious comparison.
  • That is also not taking into account the fact that the people appoint their members of government so if they behave badly they can be removed, the same is not true for Church officials making your comparison even MORE, goddamn fallacious.
The two are not comparable, they were not the first time you tried and they didn't magically become not fallacious on your dozenth attempt.

I'm sorry who is paying their taxes even though they have a perfectly legal way not to pay taxes?

Quote:Some of them but not all, and just stopping paying them is not one of them.
And I was arguing that Catholics can just stop giving the church money with no repercussions. You're the idiot that brought the government into this discussion with a stupid fallacious comparison. I have repeatedly demonstrated exactly why it's irrelevant, fallacious, and doesn't apply to the Church tithe.
You also argued a few posts back that my position was flawed because I was relying on laws, which according to you don't exist, but now here we are with your entire position hinging on laws.... that you think don't exist.

PICK A FUCKING POSITION ALREADY. I feel like I'm in a debate with four separate people.

You and I know both know that when we talked about paying taxes, we only ever meant the one. Which you and I both agreed on that we both have a legal means not to pay our taxes, you know, just the one not the one for the can of peas you buy at the grocery store.

Quote:[Image: 1378095315_laughter.gif]
Of the, let's say, 18ish or so individual points, criticisms, and rebuttals I made in JUST THAT ONE POST you respond to a single one and ignore every single other one and you think that's enough to "win"? You think you can run like a little bitch from 90% of a post and claim victory? Especially when you are actually wrong about the other 10%. Really? El Oh El.
1-18 is a "victory" for you is it? Setting that bar low, and still failing to clear it. Nice work lad.

Oh sorry, I suppose given that I completely dismantled your 1 it's 0-18 for that post now. For that SINGLE post.
[Image: giphy.gif]

Didn't dismantle anything, just made up a bunch of excuses, just like the Catholics do when they tithe the church.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: