Gender-neutral Barbies. Is there no limit to Marxist perversion?

[TheEconomist]

The Catholic church protects rapists, thieves, and pedophiles so they have nothing to say about morality when their own behavior is so abhorrent. (...) The Vatican is a hypocrite to their very core.

I combined two of your posts since they cover a common theme.

You should expect the Catholic Church to behave as a political group because it absolutely is a political group. Their reactions to stories being brought up regarding the admittedly atrocious behavior of some of their priest mirror that of political parties and large corporations. We would be naive to expect the Catholic Church to not behave in this manner. And, obviously, the charge of hypocrisy has some ring to it since this behavior is at odds with the ideas promoted through biblical scripture.

In contemporary parlance, we have a saying that is appropriate here: never meet your heroes. The reason we tell people to not meet their heroes is that principles never manifest themselves fully in the world. Humans are bound to disappoint in some way or another: real heroes are never perfect. It's one of the interesting features of Genesis and Exodus. Every hero in there does at least one thing wrong, and every group of people has both good and bad individuals in them. That would be the problem with putting any human being or group of human being on a pedestal. They will fail you in one way or another and probably will do it sooner than later. If you want to ponder the hypocrisy of some believers as opposed to that of the Church, think about the first commandment: "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other Gods but me." You shouldn't idolize the Catholic Church, no more than you should idolize the Pope.

As for your comment regarding morality, you should perhaps consider the relevance of biblical scripture before dismissing it. The stories in this book are not shallow by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Lisa]

I combined two of your posts since they cover a common theme.

You should expect the Catholic Church to behave as a political group because it absolutely is a political group. Their reactions to stories being brought up regarding the admittedly atrocious behavior of some of their priest mirror that of political parties and large corporations. We would be naive to expect the Catholic Church to not behave in this manner. And, obviously, the charge of hypocrisy has some ring to it since this behavior is at odds with the ideas promoted through biblical scripture.

In contemporary parlance, we have a saying that is appropriate here: never meet your heroes. The reason we tell people to not meet their heroes is that principles never manifest themselves fully in the world. Humans are bound to disappoint in some way or another: real heroes are never perfect. It's one of the interesting features of Genesis and Exodus. Every hero in there does at least one thing wrong, and every group of people has both good and bad individuals in them. That would be the problem with putting any human being or group of human being on a pedestal. They will fail you in one way or another and probably will do it sooner than later. If you want to ponder the hypocrisy of some believers as opposed to that of the Church, think about the first commandment: "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other Gods but me." You shouldn't idolize the Catholic Church, no more than you should idolize the Pope.

As for your comment regarding morality, you should perhaps consider the relevance of biblical scripture before dismissing it. The stories in this book are not shallow by any stretch of the imagination.

The Vatican should be investigated and prosecuted under the RICO statute because of their actions regarding their criminal priests.

You do not need to believe in a such a vengeful and narcissistic god to understand the stories as moral parables.

 

[Mashmont]

Why are you so eager to make excuses and exemptions for priests who sexually assaulted children? I didn't know of anyone who holds Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot out as heroes or leaders. They were violent dictators.

You have yet to provide any evidence to support the claim that God or Jesus ever existed? The bible is the work of man so you cannot claim that it is proof of your god without committing a circular logic fallacy.

1. I don't excuse the gay priests who violated their vows
2. By your logic, the actions of Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin invalidate irreligion as a whole, since they as atheists were the most murderous humans in history, along with atheist Hilter.
3. "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically," Jesus - Wikipedia

I'll bet you people wonder what it's like to never have lost a debate. Well listen and learn.

 

[Mashmont]

You have no idea what it is like for them to feel like you are born in the wrong body. Your denials and prayer do not change the situation.

A lot of people have things about their bodies they wish were different. Maybe they think their ears or nose is to big. The key is to feel comfortable within your own body.

There was a cheerleader in my high school class who was positively homely when you first met her. She had buck teeth. A tremendous overbite. But she more than made up for it with her pleasing energetic personality and her smile. She was very popular and had popular boyfriends. Once you knew her, you forgot about her teeth, and found her very beautiful.
I always think of her when people whine about their appearance.

 

[Lisa]

A lot of people have things about their bodies they wish were different. Maybe they think their ears or nose is to big. The key is to feel comfortable within your own body.

There was a cheerleader in my high school class who was positively homely when you first met her. She had buck teeth. A tremendous overbite. But she more than made up for it with her pleasing energetic personality and her smile. She was very popular and had popular boyfriends. Once you knew her, you forgot about her teeth, and found her very beautiful.
I always think of her when people whine about their appearance.

Cosmetic surgery is not the same as your body being of the wrong gender. 99.5% of people will never see the surgery and unless they are into contortionism or exhibitionism they cannot see their own surgery in a mirror. This surgery makes them feel at peace with their body so why should your uninformed opinioned be injected into theior lives? What happened to the idea of personal freedom or is that only for republicans and religions?

Why do you care that a person is transgender? Do you think it is a fad? You do confront trans people on the street and inform them of your opinions?

 

[TheEconomist]

The Vatican should be investigated and prosecuted under the RICO statute because of their actions regarding their criminal priests.

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know what should or should not apply here. However, protecting rapists and child molesters is clearly wrong.

You do not need to believe in such a vengeful and narcissistic god to understand the stories as moral parables.

It is true that you can draw value from those stories absent theological commitments. However, you should be more careful when you choose your words. Vengence is clearly not the right word, no more than is narcissism.

 

[mrjurrs]

OK, Hey guys. It looks like all the debates have ended on each topic in here, and it looks like it's time to scoop all the chips off the table. I like debating, and I like winning. So I will end further discussion here, and hereby close this thread.

Cheers,
Mashmont

It's easy to win if you only listen to yourself. I'm guessing you must spend alot of time playing with yourself.

 

[mrjurrs]

Having somewhat larger or smaller extraneous pieces of flesh at birth does not translate to ambiguity. This is leftwing psychobabble. Sorry

Your fear has led you to try to diminish what you don't understand. I'm sorry your mind is so closed, you are missing alot of beauty in the world.

 

[Lisa]

You're talking about individual fallible humans. I'm talking about the perfect teachings of Jesus that formed the Catholic Church. If you want to indict a whole belief system on the acts of its members, let's talk about Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Shouldn't their 100 million murders between them completely invalidate atheism by your standards?

The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot | Richard Dawkins Foundation

Did Hitler Kill Millions in the Name of Atheism?

 

[Lisa]

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know what should or should not apply here. However, protecting rapists and child molesters is clearly wrong.



It is true that you can draw value from those stories absent theological commitments. However, you should be more careful when you choose your words. Vengence is clearly not the right word, no more than is narcissism.

Any person who demands absolute worship and obedience or the person is punished with eternal torture is both vengeful and narcissistic. People are told that he is a loving god and apparently they see those actions as someone who is loving. That may explain why religious conservatives are such hateful hypocrites.
The Christian God knowingly created people who weren't perfect and then he punishes them for their imperfect actions. That action on your god's part is borderline psychopathic. We have laws in the US the prevent corporations from making defective products and then blaming the consumer when they get hurt. The church created sin and then tries to sell people the cure for sin as obedience and money for the problem that they created. Creating a problem and then selling someone the fix for what you created is the oldest scam known. Once you look at religious belief critically you see the Stocklolm syndrome and gaslighting being at the core of theistic religious belief.

 

[TheEconomist]

Cosmetic surgery is not the same as your body being of the wrong gender. 99.5% of people will never see the surgery and unless they are into contortionism or exhibitionism they cannot see their own surgery in a mirror. This surgery makes them feel at peace with their body so why should your uninformed opinioned be injected into their lives? What happened to the idea of personal freedom or is that only for republicans and religions?

I cannot speak for Mashmont, nor can I speak for you, but a nuance may be worth pointing out in this thread.

It's fair to say that you have the right to hold and express any opinion you want. It's also fair to say that if someone chooses to undergo some kind of surgery, it is their choice regardless of whether or not other people approve of this choice. All of this is fine because it doesn't yet involve controlling the lives of other people. What you don't have a right to do, is to silence others. You don't have a right to people not expressing a different view on the matter. I would contend that in most context, the moral thing to do is to not make people feel bad about themselves. As long as it doesn't require you to disavow your own views and outright lie, playing along with what others do is the correct thing to do. If you go out of your ways to insult people because you disagree with their views, you're just being a jerk. However, if a discussion concerns policies for transgender people or transgender people specifically, you might be stuck with either sparring feelings or saying what you think. In that case, I'd say true lack of respect is to choose to spare feelings. People can hold opinions that imply your choices are wrong and they won't always be as polite as possible when they say it.

In the real world, people don't go out of their ways to talk about sensitive issues or insult each other. They go out of their ways not to do that because conflicts are potentially dangerous and almost always both exhausting and useless.

Why do you care that a person is transgender? Do you think it is a fad? You do confront trans people on the street and inform them of your opinions?

I don't care that someone is a transgender. There is something profoundly tragic about it and if they made choices which led them to live better lives, good for them. I'm usually very amiable and go out of my ways to not cause problems, so I would probably acquiesce to just about any demand made politely on their part.

On the other hand, if someone asked me whether man and woman are just social constructions, I will express my disagreement. Likewise, if someone asks me whether men and women are the same, I will answer "no." And if someone asks me whether or not a transperson should undergo some kind of surgery and hormonal treatment, I will say that I don't know. I'd like to have data to answer that question to see if, for example, people regret more often doing it than not doing it, or if transitioning helps lower suicide rates, etc. None of these answers are considered politically correct.

 

[ultmd]

1. I don't excuse the gay priests who violated their vows

Lisa's right. Clearly you do. This is one of the primary reasons why your "church" is dwindling, btw.

I'll bet you people wonder what it's like to never have lost a debate. Well listen and learn.

:lamo
That's funny stuff, coming from the guy who is, as we speak, STILL running from my challenges in this very thread.

Let me know when you're ready to discuss those "45 premonitions" from the John Birch Society in 1963, ok? Remember to come equipped with documentation. No Fake News from you, ok?

Oh, and you still haven't been able to define Marxism, Communism and Socialism yet, either. So get on that, too.

It'd be a shame to be outed as a "debate loser" in your own thread, wouldn't it?

I look forward to your response, Mr. Fake-Christian Fake-Intellectual Message Board Toughguy. :lamo

 

[Roadvirus]

I am here to let you all know that in my house, Ken had a special friendship with Duke (GI Joe). They loved riding in Barbie's pink Mustang, and I do have the pics to prove it. They also loved whipping up a gourmet meal in her kitchen.

So that's what Duke does when not on duty.

 

[AProudLefty]

Ken to Barbie: you don't have a hole? That's ok I'm gonna screw you.

 

[Lisa]

Lisa's right. Clearly you do. This is one of the primary reasons why your "church" is dwindling, btw.




:lmao
That's funny stuff, coming from the guy who is, as we speak, STILL running from my challenges in this very thread.

Let me know when you're ready to discuss those "45 premonitions" from the John Birch Society in 1963, ok? Remember to come equipped with documentation. No Fake News from you, ok?

Oh, and you still haven't been able to define Marxism, Communism, and Socialism yet, either. So get on that, too.

It'd be a shame to be outed as a "debate loser" in your own thread, wouldn't it?

I look forward to your response, Mr. Fake-Christian Fake-Intellectual Message Board Toughguy. :lamo

I read his threads just to laugh at the intellectual carnage of his replies.

He hinted about a great level of education. I'm still waiting on that and his evidence that both god and Jesus actually existed. It is an obvious opposing slope of the more advanced that we are the less that we see actions of gods.

 

[Lisa]

So that's what Duke does when not on duty.

Which one gets to drive the Dream camper and the Ferrari?

 

[Rich2018]

...pathetic and disgusting. Mattel should be boycotted until they remove this trash. There is no such thing as a gender-neutral person.

But there should be

There is no benefit at all in labeling people. Why do you NEED to know if they have a penis ?

...God made us MALE or FEMALE....

Who said a god made us ?
Aren't you aware of sexual reproduction ?

What makes you think there's a god or gods ?

You sound like a creationist, if you believe in such stuff, why should anything you say be treated seriously ?

...these leftists who claim they embrace science clearly do not. TWO genders. Period....

How is rejecting the need to identify a gender at birth or anytime a "leftist" idea ?

How is it rejecting science ?

Make your mind up, the "leftists" support science and think creation is a children's bedtime story, but you say they now reject science too.
Would you prefer if the left remained pro-science and anti-creation ?

...but the manipulation of little girls through this vile unnatural leftist propaganda is what has me absolutely fuming....

What about the manipulation of little boys, why do you desert half the population ?

...Is nobody safe from this onslaught from the Marxist left to degrade the nuclear family?

Who needs to have immunity from the "Marxist" left ?
Who needs safety from the extreme right ?

...we all know the end-game, of course. To further weaken the father, mother, child family through abortion, through gender confusion, through homosexual acts. If they can make this collapse occur, America will be ripe for Marxist takeover, and that will mean unimaginable wealth and power for the very few, and total abject poverty for the rest of us....

You mean the few will be like the owners of Walmart and Amazon whist those in abject poverty will be like those who're forced to work for those companies on minimum wage ?
Damn homosexuals...next they'll want baker's shops to back them a same sex wedding cake and destroy America

Homosexuals don't like apple pie you know

...Let's fight this evil. Let Mattel know how you feel. Boycott the hell out of them until they drop this garbage.

Keep eating the apple pie in church.

 

[TheEconomist]

Any person who demands absolute worship and obedience or the person is punished with eternal torture is both vengeful and narcissistic.

First of all, vengeance implies a form of retaliation. It's very different from issuing a threat and then acting out that threat. If you tell someone give me your wallet or I will hurt you and then you hurt him because he refuses to comply, not a single sane person would call that vengeance. It is aggressive, but it is not vengeful.

Second of all, the God described in the Bible does not demand mere obedience. Abraham called into question the motives of God when he sought to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. He argued on behalf of its citizens at length. One of the most famous parts of Genesis involves Jacob wrestling with God in a dream. That's why God changed his name to Israel: it literally means to struggle with God. The expectation is that you question, not that you comply headlessly.

People are told that he is a loving god and apparently they see those actions as someone who is loving. That may explain why religious conservatives are such hateful hypocrites.

Except that religious conservatives are those who make by far the most donations to charities in both time and money, as a share of their income.

The Christian God knowingly created people who weren't perfect and then he punishes them for their imperfect actions. That action on your god's part is borderline psychopathic.

Those stories are not that shallow. People portrayed in the Bible are neither perfectly good nor perfectly bad. Clearly, God did not side against all of them, even though all of them were at least a little wrong in some way or another.

Once you look at religious belief critically you see the Stocklolm syndrome and gaslighting being at the core of theistic religious belief.

You're taking ideas that have been passed down for thousands of years, about stories imbued with deep psychological realism and concerned with ideals we still hold on to this day. And your point is that it's an ill-conceived plan to control people... That's not being critical. It's swallowing the narrative of a radical whose books you likely never read.

 

[AProudLefty]

First of all, vengeance implies a form of retaliation. It's very different from issuing a threat and then acting out that threat. If you tell someone give me your wallet or I will hurt you and then you hurt him because he refuses to comply, not a single sane person would call that vengeance. It is aggressive, but it is not vengeful.

Second of all, the God described in the Bible does not demand mere obedience. Abraham called into question the motives of God when he sought to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. He argued on behalf of its citizens at length. One of the most famous parts of Genesis involves Jacob wrestling with God in a dream. That's why God changed his name to Israel: it literally means to struggle with God. The expectation is that you question, not that you comply headlessly.



Except that religious conservatives are those who make by far the most donations to charities in both time and money, as a share of their income.



Those stories are not that shallow. People portrayed in the Bible are neither perfectly good nor perfectly bad. Clearly, God did not side against all of them, even though all of them were at least a little wrong in some way or another.



You're taking ideas that have been passed down for thousands of years, about stories imbued with deep psychological realism and concerned with ideals we still hold on to this day. And your point is that it's an ill-conceived plan to control people... That's not being critical. It's swallowing the narrative of a radical whose books you likely never read.

Narcissism implies injury when one is not admired or worshipped.

 

[TheEconomist]

How is rejecting the need to identify gender at birth or anytime a "leftist" idea?

The idea that gender is malleable stems from the idea that gender exists only a social fact. This theory (social constructivism) implies that biology gender, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation are unrelated to each other. That idea is held by radicals on the far left and it is held by no one on the right.

How is it rejecting science?

These variables are highly correlated.

The far left has a very big problem with any kind of research which hints to psychological differences between men and women that might be related to biology. Research on the Big Five model of personality relies on large scale surveys and we have many studies like that involving dozens of countries and thousands of people. They always conclude roughly the same thing: men and women are not the same.

Make your mind up, the "leftists" support science and think creation is a children's bedtime story, but you say they now reject science too. Would you prefer if the left remained pro-science and anti-creation?

People who think that Genesis should be part of a physics class have a problem. Genesis talks a lot about the human condition, but it's not meant to be a theory of physical processes.

 

[Mashmont]

The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot | Richard Dawkins Foundation

Did Hitler Kill Millions in the Name of Atheism?

Richard Dawkins is an atheist. Derp.

 

[Mashmont]

But there should be

There is no benefit at all in labeling people. Why do you NEED to know if they have a penis ?



Who said a god made us ?
Aren't you aware of sexual reproduction ?

What makes you think there's a god or gods ?

You sound like a creationist, if you believe in such stuff, why should anything you say be treated seriously ?




How is rejecting the need to identify a gender at birth or anytime a "leftist" idea ?

How is it rejecting science ?

Make your mind up, the "leftists" support science and think creation is a children's bedtime story, but you say they now reject science too.
Would you prefer if the left remained pro-science and anti-creation ?



What about the manipulation of little boys, why do you desert half the population ?




Who needs to have immunity from the "Marxist" left ?
Who needs safety from the extreme right ?




You mean the few will be like the owners of Walmart and Amazon whist those in abject poverty will be like those who're forced to work for those companies on minimum wage ?
Damn homosexuals...next they'll want baker's shops to back them a same sex wedding cake and destroy America

Homosexuals don't like apple pie you know




Keep eating the apple pie in church.

1. Why is Barbie making a big deal of having unisex dolls?
2. If you believe atheist drivel, why should we keep listening to you?
3. Most boys aren't playing with Barbies
4. We all need protection from the Marxist left. They want to take over and ruin our lives.
5. People who work for Walmart and Amazon do so because they want to. Whereas Venezuelans and Cuba are forced to live under their Marxist leaders. Understand the difference now?
6. Thanks. I love apple pie. Church ladies really know how to make them.

 

[Mashmont]

That may explain why religious conservatives are such hateful hypocrites.

I attend a Roman Catholic Mass with about 200 others. They are nice people. Nice families. Nice polite kids. I don't know one of them I don't like. Can you say the same about 200 irreligious people you know?

The Christian God knowingly created people who weren't perfect and then he punishes them for their imperfect actions.

Actually....God gives people free will, and people punish themselves by their actions. If somebody jumps off a building, do you blame God when they reap the bad results? On second thought, you probably do. Atheists somehow believe in a world without consequences for actions. Nothing at all works that way, yet they demand it.

The church created sin and then tries to sell people the cure for sin as obedience and money for the problem that they created.

As a Catholic, nobody has ever asked me personally to give money. Nobody is required to give money to be a member of my church. Nobody even knows what you give or if you give. You claim to have been a Catholic. You should know that.

Creating a problem and then selling someone the fix for what you created is the oldest scam known. Once you look at religious belief critically you see the Stocklolm syndrome and gaslighting being at the core of theistic religious belief.

What is it you have against free will and actions with consequences again?

 

[nota bene]

So that's what Duke does when not on duty.

Now you know. Good times!

I still have Duke packed away somewhere. He was one of the talking G.I. Joes.

 

[Lisa]

I attend a Roman Catholic Mass with about 200 others. They are nice people. Nice families. Nice polite kids. I don't know one of them I don't like. Can you say the same about 200 irreligious people you know?[/qupote] You don't seem, to understand that just because we are atheists or humanists that we don't also meet up on a weekly basis to chat about not going to church. I don't collect stamps but I don't belong to a group of fellow people who also don't collect stamps. I know about 6 other humanists and we might see each other a few times a year, at the grocery store, lectures or the book store.

Actually....God gives people free will, and people punish themselves by their actions. If somebody jumps off a building, do you blame God when they reap the bad results? On second thought, you probably do. Atheists somehow believe in a world without consequences for actions. Nothing at all works that way, yet they demand it.

You have yet to put forth any empirical evidence that a god exists. The fact that you may belive it doesn't mean that God actually exists.

As a Catholic, nobody has ever asked me personally to give money. Nobody is required to give money to be a member of my church. Nobody even knows what you give or if you give. You claim to have been a Catholic. You should know that.

For some strange reason, the Cleveland diocese still sends me envelopes for the weekly collection, despite the fact that I sent them a letter not quote 30 years ago saying that I was not a member, I didn't believe and telling them to remove my name from the roster of members.

What is it you have against free will and actions with consequences again?

If your claimed god is also claimed to be omniscient as the bible says then you do not have free will because free will is impossible with foreknowledge. You may have the appearance of free will but you cannot possibly have free will if your god has the ability of omniscience. Foreknowledge eliminates the possibility of free will. Foreknowledge also eliminates the idea of sin and morality because if your actions are already set in stone then you can not be blamed for them and since you never had a choice then there is no such ideal as morality which relies on the idea that you had the choice between doing good and doing evil or wrong.