American Multinational Oil Company Says 'no' To Homosexual Age

[Chestertonian]

 

No. I'm not a robot. And I'm not pretending that I am some purely rational being. But I try not to promote opinions that are totally contrary to the global scientific consensus regarding an issue that will seriously impact the lives of millions or billions of people. Because that's irresponsible. That's also why, despite being on the far libertarian left, you will never see me advocate the sudden abolition of capitalism.

 

Due to the global scientific consensus regarding an issue that people believed would seriously impact the lives of millions and millions of people, eugenicists were able to successfully push for forced abortion/sterilization procedures. GK Chesterton was marginalized and called "irresponsible" for taking a stance against such policies.

 

I'm not an ACC denier, and I'm not equating it with eugenics. I'm simply cautioning you against against taking a position based solely on GSC, because as we've seen in the past, GSC can be wrong.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Chestertonian

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Due to the global scientific consensus regarding an issue that people believed would seriously impact the lives of millions and millions of people, eugenicists were able to successfully push for forced abortion/sterilization procedures. GK Chesterton was marginalized and called "irresponsible" for taking a stance against such policies.

 

I'm not an ACC denier, and I'm not equating it with eugenics. I'm simply cautioning you against against taking a position based solely on GSC, because as we've seen in the past, GSC can be wrong.

 

The science behind Eugenics isn't completely wrong. It's just not politically correct to talk about it.

Edited June 5, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Chestertonian]

Eugenics isn't completely wrong. It's just not politically correct to talk about it.

 

racist!!!!
 

[GeorgiiMichael]

Thread was mean spirited, and resorted to logical fallacies to win arguments rather than using well thought out responses. When the Catholicity of a member was called into question, commenters failed to realize that by doing that, they called their own Catholicity into question. The only cordial commenter seemed to be the avowed Atheist, which seemed at odds on a Catholic forum.

 

1/10, would not read again.

[Nihil Obstat]

Thread was mean spirited, and resorted to logical fallacies to win arguments rather than using well thought out responses. When the Catholicity of a member was called into question, commenters failed to realize that by doing that, they called their own Catholicity into question. The only cordial commenter seemed to be the avowed Atheist, which seemed at odds on a Catholic forum.

 

1/10, would not read again.

I feel compelled to lodge a formal protest at your last observation.

[GeorgiiMichael]

I feel compelled to lodge a formal protest at your last observation.

 

My apologies, that's what it seemed like on the first read through. Your replies were quite cordial.

[Vincent Vega]

Well, it's truly heartening to see how the phatmass peanut gallery thinks that Exxon Mobil giving money to Planned Parenthood is so crazy dope, yo!

 

Pretty sure the crazy dope, yo, was due to the fact that given the choice, you would rather babies die than face the possibility that grown people - whom you've almost assuredly never met -  engage in an act that you disagree with, even though it does not affect you (or, at the very least, affects you the same amount as divorced people who get remarried and engage in comparable acts (which, I might add, I can't recall seeing you complain about even once)).

 

Good try at a strawman, though! Keep thinking you're the only real Catholic around.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Pretty sure the crazy dope, yo, was due to the fact that given the choice, you would rather babies die than face the possibility that grown people - whom you've almost assuredly never met -  engage in an act that you disagree with, even though it does not affect you (or, at the very least, affects you the same amount as divorced people who get remarried and engage in comparable acts (which, I might add, I can't recall seeing you complain about even once)).

 

Good try at a strawman, though! Keep thinking you're the only real Catholic around.

 

 

Yeah, or maybe props given for actual fact checking rather than knee jerk reactions. Take your pick.

[franciscanheart]

Pretty sure the crazy dope, yo, was due to the fact that given the choice, you would rather babies die than face the possibility that grown people - whom you've almost assuredly never met -  engage in an act that you disagree with, even though it does not affect you (or, at the very least, affects you the same amount as divorced people who get remarried and engage in comparable acts (which, I might add, I can't recall seeing you complain about even once)).
 
Good try at a strawman, though! Keep thinking you're the only real Catholic around.

This.

[4588686]

Well, it's truly heartening to see how the phatmass peanut gallery thinks that Exxon Mobil giving money to Planned Parenthood is so crazy dope, yo!

 

Sadly, it seems that pretty much every major corporation out there funds that vile organization.

 

Are there any major oil companies that don't give to PP or similar organizations?  (Serious, earnest question.)

 

 

People were propping USAirways for making you look foolish for your mean spirited remark about being sure to support Exxon because it decided to take a corporate dump on gay people.  Not because people here like that Exxon gives to Planned Parenthood.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1576858995/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1576858995&linkCode=as2&tag=phatmasscom-20

 

Edited June 5, 2013 by Hasan

[dUSt]

 

http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Success-Minutes-Day/dp/1576858995/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1370442704&sr=8-2&keywords=reading+comprehension

Please use the phatmass affiliate link next time.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1576858995/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1576858995&linkCode=as2&tag=phatmasscom-20

[4588686]

As you correctly note, most of us are not in a position where not driving is a feasible option.  Though I'm not against using public transportation (I myself prefer to use the metro in D.C.)  However, even your public transport no doubt runs on fossil fuels, and I'm sure you drive or ride in a car when necessary.

 

Exactly what policies that I oppose would stop global warming?  Even scientists convinced of man-made global warming say that nothing short of a total global ban on all "greenhouse gas" emissions would have any real effect at all on the climate.  Somehow I doubt even you would welcome the consequences of such drastic action.  Currently, we simply don't have a viable large-scale replacement for fossil fuels as a major energy source.  I support human freedom and property rights, and oppose government policies that would have negligible effect at best on climate, but very real crippling effects on the economy - which would seriously increase poverty.

 

And I can guarantee that my own personal carbon print is a tiny fraction of Al Gore's

 

But sorry for not sharing your pc opinions.

If you're so concerned about the environment, go out and plant a true.  Internet beeshing doesn't do poo for the earth (and fossil fuels are being burned to keep you pc juiced.)

 

 

-Public transportation does indeed often (though not always) run on fossil fuels.  But less carbon gets pumped into the air when thousands of people satisfy their commute needs via public transportation rather than individually driving.  

 

-What policies do you oppose that would prevent climate change?  Maybe carbon taxes, emissions trading, mandated increased fuel standards the list goes on.  I have never once seen you make a single comment of support to even the idea of doing anything of substance to deal with climate change. 

 

-I'm not sure who on Fox news told you that the only way to diminish (since prevention is out of the question at this point, thanks conservatives) climate change is to stop using all fossil fuels now and forever immediately.  But that is not correct.  At all. 

 

-Who cares what your carbon footprint is next to Al Gore's?  Who cares about Al Gore?  I understand that Hannity loves referencing Al Gore but nobody cares.  Al Gore isn't a scientist or a policy maker.  

 

-Climate change is science.  It's not my PC opinion.

 

-Internet beeshing can be helpful if it helps people say 'Hey, this Socrates guy and his ilk are full of poo and they are offering a profoundly intellectually dishonest assertion about climate change maybe I should be concerned about this.'  

Edited June 5, 2013 by Hasan

[4588686]

The Vatican has released numerous statements.  Like on most issues pertaining to the economy,  the environment, foreign policy, or really anything except for gay and reproductive rights, they have been a much more substantive and eloquent moral voice than either Obama or the American Democratic party as a whole.  

Edited June 5, 2013 by Hasan

[Socrates]

Pretty sure the crazy dope, yo, was due to the fact that given the choice, you would rather babies die than face the possibility that grown people - whom you've almost assuredly never met -  engage in an act that you disagree with, even though it does not affect you (or, at the very least, affects you the same amount as divorced people who get remarried and engage in comparable acts (which, I might add, I can't recall seeing you complain about even once)).

 

Good try at a strawman, though! Keep thinking you're the only real Catholic around.

 

1)  Your assertion that I'd rather see babies die than for people to commit homosexual acts is simply a bald-faced lie and slander.

I was not aware of Exxon-Mobil's donations to PP, etc.  I would definitely favor buying gas from an oil company that did not give money to abortion-providing organizations over Exxon, which was why I inquired if anyone was aware of such companies.  (Though nobody seems interested in answering - folks here seem more interested in cheap shots, however dishonest.)

 

2)  People will commit sins of sodomy whether or not companies award them special benefits and such for it, though I'm against any active supporting of homosexuality, and awarding homosexuals special benefits or recognition.  I'm simply with the Church on this one.

And I am opposed to sodomitic acts within marriage, and divorce and remarriage - and have never defended such practices.  People just don't seem to post that often on here promoting or defending those particular sins.

 

3)  "Disagreement" with homosexual activity is not my personal opinion, but is the constant moral teaching of the Church founded by Christ.  Pretending that it's nothing more than a personal disagreement on my part is dishonest.  (Whether or not you personally agree with the Church on this is beside the point here.)

 

4)  I certainly never claimed to be the only real Catholic around, though I believe Catholics should assent to the teachings of the Church.  Obviously, as you've apparently gone Protestant, you reject the Church's teaching authority, though it seems you at least realize you should not claim to belong to a Church whose teachings you reject.  I'm not sure why a Protestant should be so concerned about who thinks who's a "real Catholic," though.

 

Accusing me of a strawman is beyond hypocritical, given that your entire post is nothing but a string of slanders and dishonesty.

(Or does your new protty church also no longer consider slander to be a sin?)

[4588686]

1)  Your assertion that I'd rather see babies die than for people to commit homosexual acts is simply a bald-faced lie and slander.

 

I was not aware of Exxon-Mobil's donations to PP, etc.  I would definitely favor buying gas from an oil company that did not give money to abortion-providing organizations over Exxon, which was why I inquired if anyone was aware of such companies.  (Though nobody seems interested in answering - folks here seem more interested in cheap shots, however dishonest.)

 

 

2)  People will commit sins of sodomy whether or not companies award them special benefits and such for it, though I'm against any active supporting of homosexuality, and awarding homosexuals special benefits or recognition.  I'm simply with the Church on this one.

 

And I am opposed to sodomitic acts within marriage, and divorce and remarriage - and have never defended such practices.  People just don't seem to post that often on here promoting or defending those particular sins.

 

 

3)  "Disagreement" with homosexual activity is not my personal opinion, but is the constant moral teaching of the Church founded by Christ.  Pretending that it's nothing more than a personal disagreement on my part is dishonest.  (Whether or not you personally agree with the Church on this is beside the point here.)

 

 

4)  I certainly never claimed to be the only real Catholic around, though I believe Catholics should assent to the teachings of the Church.  Obviously, as you've apparently gone Protestant, you reject the Church's teaching authority, though it seems you at least realize you should not claim to belong to a Church whose teachings you reject.  I'm not sure why a Protestant should be so concerned about who thinks who's a "real Catholic," though.

 

 

Accusing me of a strawman is beyond hypocritical, given that your entire post is nothing but a string of slanders and dishonesty.

 

(Or does your new protty church also no longer consider slander to be a sin?)

 

 

Edited June 6, 2013 by Hasan