http://mrbogey.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] mrbogey.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics 2012-03-15 03:26 am (UTC)

'Well to be fair, I think you're splitting hairs over a typical Internet pedantic debate. This isn't a court room and we don't have to speak with lawyer-like precision because YOU or others think we are all required too'

Lawyer like precision? Are you kidding me? Are you seriously kidding me?

Can I now say that Democrats advocate child-rape because they endorse comprehensive sex-ed in late elementary school? Can I defend the statement with a total cop-out such as "well it's not lawyer like precision but..."?

Can I? Because there's a huge gulf between advocating a ban and advocating government not subsidize or promote the use of something.

'And the funny thing is, you're not even Roman Catholic'

I was born a Roman Catholic. And I was wrong on a specific issue detailing the pope speaking ex cathedra.

At least I'm honest about not being a Catholic and not pretending to be one. So I got that going for me.

Post-edit addition:

'That the Catholic Church has an extremely antagonistic view regarding birth control and condoms, especially in Africa or here in the United States and specifically about HIV and AIDS? '

Here's the problem. You condemn the Catholic church for their advocacy against condoms while neglecting they advocate against promiscuous sex as well. So all these "good Catholics" get to blame the church for the first part while getting a pass on the second part.

The problem is all these Catholics who pick and choose what to follow. But condemning them would hit a little too close to home for you.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting