This is why catholicism sucks.  If you’re going to be a christian, you at least need to think for yourself because these guys have a few screws loose.

I try to stay away from anything that contains the phrase, “The Religion of [fill in the blank].”

There’s something… umm.. well.. jihadist about it…

So who of the Catholic defenders from the last one is gonna step forward to defend the cult this time? Anyone? Anyone?

I’m not Catholic, but not being a whore and actually being monogamous actually seems like a good way of combating STDs to me. So do condoms.

You complete freaking idiot: the athiestic materialist “religion of health” is _EXACTLY_ what killed Hunter S. Thompson: when his body started showing the least little sign of failing, he decided to check out - and fuck anyone or everyone else: his family, his wife, his friends and fans, any sense of duty or honor: when he lost his health, he decided he was worthless - because that’s what society has been telling people for a long time now. He checked out because his indoctrination told him to.

Such a “rebel”.

If I may speak for the Vatican on this subject: they thinks what Thompson did is bullshit: complete and utter garbage - and anybody who thinks this is a good idea is either stupid, or ignorant, well beyond the comprehension of a normal intellect. It probably implies they have a broken, abandoned, self-destroyed soul.

There _are_ more important things than your health, you stupid son of a bitch. Ask Terri Shiavo - or, more importantly, ask the people who LOVE Terri Shiavo. Even if you’re in a coma and entirely f’d up - if you can still inspire love and caring in another human being, then you’re serving your purpose. How _YOU_ feel about the subject of being a vegetable is COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVENT.

And one of the things you are railing against: didn’t you notice the line “medicine of desires” - which is, things that people don’t really need: his complaint is about the amount of money spent marketing viagra and cialis, as well as tit-jobs and liposuction, which should be going for something less stupid, and are taking up the face-time of doctors who are perfectly capable of doing better things with their time.

Jesus, people. You suddenly decide to take a liberal, moral-absolutist-hating media as if they were capable of telling the whole truth on the subject, then add your own dumbass prejudices that you were taught and have been _repeatedly inculcated into you_ by academe, media, movies and protestants (we call this the “odium fides” - hatred of the faith), and spout vitriol at something you are too ignorant to know you don’t know anything about and you get the _repeated_ idiocy from the “Right Thoughts” about Catholicism. It’s mind-boggling.

Where’s the skepticism about media reports, hum? Where’s the skepticism that, maybe, things are not what they appear because the reporter has a bias? Does bias just count when it’s one you disagree with, but not when it is in line with your predispositions?

Sure, there are things with which to disagree (for instance, I think we should go back and update the natural law arguments in Aquinas’s Summa given our deeper understanding of the how of the universe), but most people speaking up are too fucking ignorant to be able to disagree with _anything_ the church has said, since for the past 1500 years (except for the last 150 or so) of the smartest minds in the world working on Her problems.

Without about 10-15 years of scholarship, you might as well just assume that you’re completely incapable of forming a cogent arguing point and let it freaking go. Or, ask for explanation, instead of assuming that you understand - which you don’t you stupid fuck.

If I may speak on behalf of the Communion of Saints - the Catholic Church doesn’t give a rats ass about your opinion of Her. Never did. Never will.

And, p.s., I don’t usually swear like this. I’m giving it a go to try to cut through your prejudices in terms you can relate to.

“There _are_ more important things than your health, you stupid son of a bitch. Ask Terri Shiavo - or, more importantly, ask the people who LOVE Terri Shiavo. Even if you’re in a coma and entirely f’d up - if you can still inspire love and caring in another human being, then you’re serving your purpose. How _YOU_ feel about the subject of being a vegetable is COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVENT.”

Whoa whoa whoa. Let me see if I got you right on this one. So, are you saying that if I am in a coma, and I want to give up, let go, and die, that I have NO RIGHT to do so if I am serving my purpose?? Forgive me if I’ve made a straw-man but, give me a fucking break. Believe what you want about what happens to people when they commit suicide, but that doesn’t mean that people don’t have a God-given (if you will) right to do what they want with their bodies, even if it is morally horrendous to God.

Like I said, forgive me for the straw-man if I made one. But, I’m just commenting on what I got from that quote of yours.

Asked about anti-AIDS measures, Sgreccia reiterated the Vatican’s teaching against use of condoms and the Church’s insistence that sexual faithfulness within marriage is the best ways to combat the HIV contagion.

I am happy when they just say that sexual faithfulness is the best way to contact HIV contagion; I am more worried when they start pushing out fake science to suggest there are holes in condoms that sperm can fit through. I wonder how many people will now die because of that “scientific” advice given by the catholic church.

Vatican officials on Thursday held out Pope John Paul II’s stoic suffering with Parkinson’s disease as an antidote to the mentality that modern medicine must cure all, calling this a “religion of health” that is taking hold in affluent countries.

Its just sick; does anyone believe that the pope has gotten a similair level of care than a normal person would, or worse someone in the developing world? Furthermore, Parkinsons is likely more livable with when you have a flipping chariot to drive you around all day in.

While I certainly do not wish this on anyone; it will be interesting to see what happens if the Pope needs to be placed on a respirator. The church will then be stuck between a rock and a hard place; they can’t turn of it for obvious reasons - but they can’t pump our crap like this either; with expensive modern medicine being the only thing keeping him alive.

is the best way to contact HIV

Sorry, that was meant to be best way to prevent.

JRP, I hope you contract some horrible, painful disease (Parkinson’s would be nice). I’ll enjoy the thought of you suffering through it instead of bowing to the “religion of health”.

@dawrestls - Well, that is what I’m asserting.

Simply put, no. You don’t have a God-given right to do what you want with your body. Oh, certainly, you have the _freedom_ in most circumstances (except, you’ll note, this specific one) to do what you want with your body. You are free to sin, which literally means “to turn away from” God, others, your purpose in the universe, however you want to describe it. But not your right. The more correct term for it is ‘license’ - lack of due restraint. (“When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (Will Durant).)

To put the split of ‘freedom’ and ‘right’ in clear juxtoposition: you, this moment, have the freedom to murder. You do not have the right to murder.

In much the same way, you have the ‘freedom’ to kill yourself. You don’t have the right.

Now, this is where the confusion sets in to the layman: the Church, in its analysis on the subject, does recognize that it’s possible to have dual effects: for instance, giving a painkiller to assuage suffering might cause you to die prematurely (say, not be able to fight off infection). This is tolerable, because the primary use is good: ending suffering. The balance must be made with the grace of discernment.

Similarly, refusing extreme measures (DNI, for instance) is licit as well: the dignity of the person is at stake here - and keeping the body alive when it’s really dead is a desecration. Unfortunately, once you are on extreme measures and if you are not inherently suffering, it is not necessarily licit for someone else to take you off (nobody has the right to terminate your treatment), since the reasons for doing so are usually bad: saving money, for instance, or burden - neither of which pass the smell test in any other instance, why should they be acceptable in this situation?

Note, please, that this is not Terri Shiavo’s case, her needs are not extreme, just the same as yours or mine. In fact, in some ways, she is operating on the same level as a baby: would you starve a baby just because it might never grow into an adult? No, of course not: a baby is good and just and right in it’s own person. Thank God for babies.

Now, given it’s relative newness, there is some unclarity around refusing _normal_ medical care. Unlike, say, Christian Scientists, most Catholics do not consider it acceptable to refuse normal medical care. I don’t know there is a formal assertion on this, however.

In regards death, the natural right of man is to be killed in a ditch by a sabre-tooth tiger. Anything else is the blessings of intellect, which must be used wisely, with the grace of discernment. You have the freedom to use the intellect badly, but you only have the right to use it for good.

Witholding food, or giving someone a drug whose primary purpose is to cause the heart to stop beating, is _not_ a right: it’s not a right for someone to give it to you (that would be murder), and it’s not a right for you to give it to yourself (that would be suicide).

While the discrimination seems fine, seen in it’s appropriate terms (not the material-relativist ones most people think of, but universal principals, rooted in faith, that transcend fad), it is pretty black-and-white: one may not intend evil that good may come of it. One may intend good things which has the side-effect of something bad, if the good significantly outweighs the bad.

Unlike how it’s painted, Catholic do _not_ walk as black-and-white a line. Thomas Aquinas acknowledge this when he acknowledged that individual Catholics are required to follow their consciences - but we must accept the consequences of doing so: following an ill-formed conscience, especially when there have been attempts to inform and regenerate it correctly (for instance, the teaching of the magisterium), is still our sin.

You don’t have a God-given right to do what you want with your body.

Changed my mind. Hope you have a stroke and become trapped inside your own body, and kept alive for a few decades.
You really, really deserve it.

@Ranin - I have two friends with Parkinson’s - one passed away recently. I can assure you he lived well with it for 10 years, until the very end where he died quietly in his sleep.

Having already suffered a fair bit in my life, I’ve made my peace with it - there are more important things than my suffering.

Whatever I end up getting (I’m sort of expecting alzheimers and cancer, in fact, so Parkinson’s would be a step up, thanks for the thought), I expect to live as well as possible until the very end, and hope to always remain a beacon to my most beloved ones, regardless of my state. I pray that my soul, made tangible to those I love, will retain its transcendent and palpable dignity and worth, even when my body is drooling and needs its diaper changed.

I expect that my loved ones will allow me to die naturally, when my work here is done and I am called Home, and that they will celebrate my life, suffering and death all, each as the blessing it was intended to be.

Certainly, if there is no expectation of recovery of mental faculties, then there is no cause for extreme measures, and I would sign a DNI and accept not having it (I don’t presently have a living will, but my intentions are well known - perhaps I should put one together. Like most, I don’t spend a lot of time thinking on my death). But I would never ask someone else to stain their soul merely to remove my suffering.

It’s very possible, even in the deepest state of incoherence, I will inspire good in someone else by my mere existance. Certainly, I hope to benefit others with my prayers (which, let me assure you, will take place regardless of the state of my body and brain. They already do.).

@ JRP:

You say…
Simply put, no. You don’t have a God-given right to do what you want with your body. Oh, certainly, you have the _freedom_ in most circumstances
And then go on to say…
To put the split of ‘freedom’ and ‘right’ in clear juxtoposition: you, this moment, have the freedom to murder. You do not have the right to murder.

In much the same way, you have the ‘freedom’ to kill yourself. You don’t have the right.

Note how I said…
Believe what you want about what happens to people when they commit suicide, but that doesn’t mean that people don’t have a God-given (if you will) right to do what they want with their bodies, even if it is morally horrendous to God.

You are fundamentally wrong. Here’s your mistake: You equate wrong-doing to oneself with wrong-doing to another. You’re right, at this moment I am free to murder. You are also right that I have no right to murder. But you are wrong in saying that “much the same way” I have no right to kill myself. This is my body, given to me by God, to do with what I will to myself, as long as I don’t infringe on anyone elses right to do what they want with theirs. I can do plenty of things to my body that are morally disgusting to God, such as (in my strong opinion) getting drunk, getting stoned, and yes...killing myself. Granted, all of these things are (in my strong opinion) immoral, but I have the right to do with my body what I will. Now, that doesn’t mean I’m free of any consequences for performing horrendous acts to myself (extreme example: Hell). On the flip side, I have no right to infringe on anyone elses right to do “bad things” to themselves. I don’t try and proselytize my friends who are drunks and stoners. Though, proselytizing might not be bad...because they’re just words. But if I tried to stop my friends from getting drunk or high...or commiting suicide...by force, that’s wrong. I have no right to do so.
I also acknowledge that you will not be swayed from your believes based on mine. So let’s just politely agree to <s>agree that I’m right</s> disagree.

hmm...for some reason that came out differantly than it did in the preview. oh well.

That’s really stupid. I’m ashamed to call myself catholic sometimes when I read stuff like this. It seems only the vatican says shit like this when all the priests and fellow parishoners I run into would never say such filth. Pathetic, But the Vatican does have a point as far as staying faithful to your partner and limiting your sexual partners in a way to prevent AIDS.

Is it just me, or is there suddenly a whole lot more malice here than there used to be?

I’m holding off on the “church of health” comments. It sure reads wrong, but I’d like to chew on it a bit.

As for the condoms thing…

Religions SHOULD hold their followers to ideals (again, something so sadly destroyed by the sex abuse scandals). I DO believe monogamy is the best policy, for physical as well as mental and emotional health. I am glad that there are those willing to say you don’t have to rut like animals without having to add on a “but if you do” rider.

It’s not as though people aren’t getting the safe sex message from other places.

Here’s the problem I have - why does everyone think that these Catholics will not use condoms because the church said so? Didn’t the church ALSO say that they shouldn’t be dipping their wick outside the marriage bed? I don’t think it proper to blame the church when some lust-induced halfwits decide to ignore part of the message.

why does everyone think that these Catholics will not use condoms because the church said so?

Because Catholics are taught from the cradle that if they don’t do everything the Church tells them, they’ll go to Hell. Be it using condoms, seeing the wrong movies, whatever.

Also, to JRP… in the end, all you are is selfish. That’s all your arguments boil down to… that people should stay alive to provide you and whoever else with whatever it is you want from them. You’ll delude yourself into thinking it’s “painless” or “peaceful”, just so you can feel better about them adhering to your standards and doing what you want them to so you can draw whatever weird comfort or inspiration from them you want. It’s all about -you-, and you can cloak it in whatever you want, but in the end, it’s still your sick selfishness.

Because Catholics are taught from the cradle that if they don’t do everything the Church tells them, they’ll go to Hell. Be it using condoms, seeing the wrong movies, whatever.

This lapsed Catholic wasn’t taught that, but that doesn’t matter; certainly some were. The point is this:
The Church is ALSO telling them to abstain from sex outside of marriage. So if they are so dogmatically programmed to do anything the Church says at all, this policy shouldn’t be a problem (at least as far as STDs are concearned; birth rate is another matter). It would be more understandable if the Church were telling its followers, who many seem to think are nothing more than programmed robots, to have lots of casual sex without protection, but it’s not. Once you accept that Catholics are able to ignore some of what the Church says (no sex), you should be able to accept that they can ignore it all (including no condoms).

The Catholic “Church” is making a huge mistake, with all the controversy over pedophile priests and everything I think they need to change some of the rules or they are going to start losing members, These rules are written by man, not God.  Like the fish on Friday ban, I guarantee that was a business decision, and had nothing to do with religion.  Maybe that’s what this is all about, it’s about business, they see how huge the pharm companies are, and they want a piece of that action by promising the same outcome just by going to church instead of the hospital.  It’s genius actually. 

I just feel that thier American churches will start losing members, not the old people who are locked into thier routines, but the vital younger audiences.

What a load of crap and I am not talking about the article.

I meant “MEAT” on Friday ....I’m retarded.

Maybe the catholic church wants to get into the “tele-healing” business? They are getting a lot less in donations with all the bad press about priests so are looking for a new market.

Now, this is where the confusion sets in to the layman: the Church, in its analysis on the subject, does recognize that it’s possible to have dual effects: for instance, giving a painkiller to assuage suffering might cause you to die prematurely (say, not be able to fight off infection). This is tolerable, because the primary use is good: ending suffering. The balance must be made with the grace of discernment.

The whole double affect thing is utter craziness. I had a teacher at school who believed in it. She was unlucky enough to have an optopic pregnancy (where the foetus attached to the fallopian tubes). It is impossible for this foetus to survive and if left; the mother will almost certainly die.

“Normal” people have the foetus “vacuumed” out. This leaves the fallopian tube in tact and no harm is done to the mother; but this goes against the catholic rule of double affect because the aim here is to directly kill the foetus; not save the mother. She instead had her whole fallopian tube removed in an operation; which clearly as a “side affect” removed the baby.

In the end, the affect was the same - dead foetus; however she was also unable to have children ever again.

------

Out of interest (I don’t know the answer) why are catholics allowed to have sex, if they are for example infertile or the women has gone through the menopause?

The whole double affect thing is utter craziness. I had a teacher at school who believed in it. She was unlucky enough to have an optopic pregnancy (where the foetus attached to the fallopian tubes). It is impossible for this foetus to survive and if left; the mother will almost certainly die.

“Normal” people have the foetus “vacuumed” out. This leaves the fallopian tube in tact and no harm is done to the mother; but this goes against the catholic rule of double affect because the aim here is to directly kill the foetus; not save the mother. She instead had her whole fallopian tube removed in an operation; which clearly as a “side affect” removed the baby.

In the end, the affect was the same - dead foetus; however she was also unable to have children ever again.

Not sure this is a good example, as the fetus in an ectopic pregnancy is going to die, regardless. Removing the entire oviduct, if unnecessary, still did more harm than good, and whatever the semantics, still had the same motivation behind it. I would love to know who advised her on this.

Google is your friend; this is a standard Catholic policy:

Catholics United

Catholic.net

Catholic Morality

I do not believe the Pope or Catholic Church has an official position on this (I can’t find one) but most Catholics subscribe to this view and this is one of the more clear cut examples of its actual use. I am sure you can find some Catholics who don’t follow it; as much as you will find Catholics who use condoms; but this appears to be the proper following - and if you believe in natural law/double affect; it follows. As you say the consequence is the same; but in double affect the consequence is irrelevant; it is a deontological ethical theory not a telelogical one.

Since this is relevent to this thread, I wanted to relate my experience of earlier tonight.

This is one of those stories you hear happening to other people, but rarely know anybody to whom it happened. Now, you do.

My grandmother, Violet Elizabeth (called “Betty” (or “Nana/Nan”, by me)) Pascucci, 94, a Roman Catholic, was the one who took me, when I was a child, every Sunday morning to Church, unfailingly. My grandfather would go on Saturday nights, usually - my parents and much of the rest of the family were mostly secular. She was the one.

She has been in the hospital for the past few months (Florida, then up here), some surgeries, a pacemaker, declining: some good days, some bad. She had a serious heart attack on Monday, was moved to Mass General on Tuesday late at night. Today, she was unresponsive, no neurological response, eyes fixed, dilated, breathing with the help of a machine, now under DNR/DNI. They had sent the family home Wednesday afternoon, expecting no significant change, and expecting that the neuro eval wouldn’t be finalized for a couple of days or no change, as was typical in these cases.

I had asked for a priest to come and give her the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick (fka Last Rights), which she hadn’t had yet - and I wanted to be there for it. The nurse called me when the priest was available, I hopped a cab over (not wanting to make him wait while I parked) from where I work, just across the river.

I was Confessed by the Priest, and received Communion with my grandmother, one last time. Then, the priest gave her Last Rites, a plenary indulgence - and I held her hand, prayed. They had at this point just finished doing an EEG - hardly any organized activity when I was looking at it, but I don’t know the official results.

Barely a minute after we finished praying and the priest stepped away, as I was still holding her hand, and my grandmother’s blood pressure began to decline, slowly but obviously, linearly: nurses and doctors came in, rushed around, ordered various sorts of blood pressure medications &c;(I barely noticed the hustle-bustle, asked and was told I wasn’t really in the way), and did what they could short of the most extreme measures - but it continued to steadily decrease - as if she were falling into a deeper sleep, very slowly.

They began to call the rest of the family, suggesting they come back soon, and intending to try to hold on to her until then with meds, but her heart rate then began to decrease, her blood pressure became unreadable, and, - it couldn’t have been more than 10 minutes after she received Last Rights- her heart just stopped beating. Very quiet, very simple. It was finished.

I was honored and privileged to share that one final communion with my grandmother, and to hold her hand as she passed. It was sad, and sadder still when my father came in, and then, a while later, my grandfather. But, also, and this is what sticks with me: it was amazing to have witnessed - and also amazing were the family’s reactions when I told them how it happened. We all agreed, we can’t envision it happening any other way, now.

It was just right.

I thank God, and feel blessed to have been there to witness her passing. And, I wanted to share it with you, because I think it’s one of those great stories that deserves to be told. It was...just right.

May God bless and keep us all.

With Love,

JRP

Aaaaaaaaand using the death of a loved one to try and win the argument.
I’m sorry for your loss, JRP, but if you hoped to win points in the debate with this, you fail.
(And if you weren’t looking to gain foothold in the debate, but “just wanted to share the experience"… well, frankly, what are you thinking? We’re a bunch of strangers on the internet. Most of us don’t really like you. It’s hard to see your sharing this story as anything but a “My dead grandmother trumps what you’ve got to say, so ha.”, and whether you intended it that way or not, by sharing it in this forum, in this manner, that has what it’s become. You’ve really not done much but cheapen it.)

Oh come on Rann, why do you feel the need to be so hateful all the time. What purpose did your post possibly serve apart from an attempt to upset someone?

I don’t necessarily endorse the tone Rann chose here, but the bottom line is, he wqas right.  That was a purely emotional manipulation that serves the discussion in no way at all.  It was a completely play on our feelings and kind of cheap considering the discussion and the location.

I respect the fact that he loves his grandmother and shared a beautiful moment, but I question his using it here in this context.  I think Rann is saying the same thing.  He’s just excitable.

Very excitable.  ;)

That whole manipulative angle is how I feel about most organized religion nonsense, actually.  Purely emotional drivel created by man to fill a void and serves no purpose in actually advancing us as a race.  Interesting that it came up.

Man has ruined God.  That’s what all of this amounts to.  Man has taken a beautiful idea and destroyed it with selfishness, arcane ritual and smug superiority.

I would first like to say that I am sorry to hear about your loss JRP and thank you for sharing that story with all of us.

Next I would like to say that the responses to this story are utterly disgusting (except padders). JRP was sharing an emotional event that took place yesterday and he is met by hate. Even if it was to make a point on this argument you could at least have some respect for someone other than yourself and just leave this one alone. You didn’t need to respond beyond expressing your sympathy. 

Third, I would like to say that I am no longer going to visit this site. I am also removing the link on my site. Debate with others is a wonderful thing. It helps in being able to see other points of views.  Lately it has been nothing more than attacks. That is where I have to say goodbye.  Thank you Jim for allowing me to comment on your site. I have enjoyed reading most of what you have written (I’m in agreement with probably 81%).  Best of wishes to you and your Wife. I hope the good days out weigh the bad 1000 to 1.

Last, I would like to thank Rann for making this decision easy. You have every right to criticize people the way you want I just don’t have to listen to it. 

I am sure that I will be criticized for this statement. If throwing hate at an individual is what makes you feel good go for it. Just keep in mind I will not be here to respond.

Sipidation

If throwing hate at an individual is what makes you feel good go for it.

Actually, not having to deal with idiots in the first place would be good, but eh, I take what I can get.
I just don’t believe in blowing smoke up someone’s ass and essentially being something I’m not to them. There are plenty of people out there who will insult and revile you all the live-long day, but do it with polite, non-confrontational language, and thus they’re being “nice”. They’re still calling you a dickhead, but they’re doing it indirectly, so hey, that’s okay.
I’d rather just cut the bullshit and call you a dickhead. (And yeah, Sipidation… you’re a dickhead. Ha-ha, you did the “You guys suck, I’m taking my ball and going home maneuver”! Loser.)
I honestly am sorry for JRP’s loss, and said as much. I could have been a real bitch about it and said that I didn’t believe his grandmother had died at all, or I could have launched actual attacks and insults at him.
Instead, I merely pointed out that what he did wasn’t exactly putting this wonderful shared last experience with his grandmother in the best of lights, that it was in fact cheapening it by plastering it up on some internet forum where he was having a minor flame war with people who he didn’t know from Adam.
I could have whistled Dixie and shoved a lollipop up his butt by being all sweetness and light while I did it, but as I see it, what’s the point? People like you, and him, and padders, are going to dislike me just as much because I disagree with you. I suppose I shouldn’t give you the satisfaction of getting to be out-and-out affronted by my blunt manner, but frankly, I just don’t care enough to put in the extra effort.
All I know is that if I, personally, was mourning the death of a loved one, I wouldn’t be posting about their death in an argument where it could theoretically “win” it for me within a few days.

Jim,

JRP didn’t seem to be pushing any point or manipulating us in anyway. There was no “this happened, therefore x”. He just recounted an experience that just happened to him and that was it. Maybe people here don’t care; but attacking him for it is completly unecessary.

I think my previous post was more emotionally loaded; and there I was trying to make a point - a valid one in my opinion.

Rann,

You are just so up yourself its incredible. You think people don’t like you because we disagree with you. I disagree with a lot of people here or at Moorewatch; and thats why I hang out there. I personally much prefere discussions with people I disagree with and who challenge me than people who just slap my back and agree with me.

I don’t dislike you because I disagree with you but because you are a hateful human being. Most of your posts contain spite and hate directed at someone. Sometimes you are on the same side as me (against censortship or anti religion) but you still are hateful about it. That I disagree with you has absolutly nothing to do with it; ironically it seems to be you that just attacks with your hatred anyone who disagrees with you; not the other way round.

I just don’t believe in blowing smoke up someone’s ass and essentially being something I’m not to them.

No one is asking you to do that. Maybe just once; before you post you can think - there is a real person at the end of this internet connection; am I really doing anything positive by making tihs post? I am sure you don’t act like you do here in real life; perhaps you can remember that people who post online are real as well.

I don’t dislike you because I disagree with you but because you are a hateful human being.

And you’re a fucking moron, but it seems like the polite thing to do would be to not make a big deal of it.

Maybe just once; before you post you can think - there is a real person at the end of this internet connection

I believe you’re real. I just don’t give a fuck about your feelings. Why should I? Are you my friend? Are you even an intelligent, considerate opponent? No, in fact you have proven to be the opposite of both. You are ignorant and you WANT to be, repeatedly refusing to listen to reason even when it’s applied to your head with a baseball bat.
You make the mistaken assumption I don’t think or don’t believe you are a “real peson” or have “real feelings”. I believe both of these… I just don’t care. I don’t care if you’re sad, or happy, or hurt, or whatever. Because you are -unimportant to me-. You’re not -supposed- to be important to me, you are a stranger, and a fucking annoying one at that. You are nobody and nothing to me, and I wouldn’t really care if you died.
That’s not hateful, that’s not giving a fuck. You are not important to me in any way, shape, or form. I am not required by any standards of decency to wish I could take a bullet for you if you were fired upon. While I might not wish you would die if you did, I wouldn’t exactly be sitting up praying for your recovery and losing sleep over it.
In real life, most people observe common rules of decorum and are not assholes, it’s true. But what Jim has here is the equivalent of, in the real world, if he had a standing table at a bar where he’d sit, tell people who wanted to hear about it what he thought of various things, and there were chairs open for others to sit down and shoot back. And while you are the equivalent of the guy that sits there and whines and yammers and gets on everyone’s nerves because he’s not so much discussing the topics as just opposing most of them for the sake of opposing them and and doing a good IMPRESSION of debating without actually following the rules of a good debate, I am the rude bar buddy who thinks tht a bar is no place to pull out the tea doilies and have a good little reconciliation over scones.
In short, padders, fuck you, fuck your opinion of me, and fuck your belief that I should give a fuck about you.

Rann,

I have made it quite clear I can take your insults and hate filled speach - it really dosen’t worry me; it just makes me feel sorry for you. What I, and clearly others don’t like is when you attack other people just because they say something you don’t like. But you are right; as you say you have no reason to care about other people you do not know at all - and that pretty much follows with your views on a lot of things; people you don’t know you have absolutly no empathy or caring towards. When people talk about the selfish right; it is you they are talking about. Its a shame because there are so few people actually like you and you give everyone a bad name; as much a Hitler=Bush lefties.

As for being a troll : How about pick 5 places at Moorewatch where you have been shown wrong; or admitted that the other person had a better argument than you and you adjusted your position. I can easily do the same; or perhaps you are always right? As for always disagreeing; Jim and I disgree on much (most?); but I can also list a few places and a few things he agrees with me; I hardly disagree just to be a pain.

padders, which ear is in, and which is out?
I DON’T GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK, WANT, OR IF YOU LIVE OR DIE. It is not a contest. You are worthless, useless, completely devoid of any meaning to me. I do not feel compelled to prove myself to you because I have nothing to prove. I do not have to prove that you are unworthy of debate, because in my mind it is a given, a fact of life, and I -do not care about you enough to seek otherwise-.
Now shut up. I stopped insulting you when you suggested it, you’re the one that started back up with me, whining that I “attacked” JRP. You’re the one that started all this bullshit whining about how hateful I am and you feel sorry for me and yadda yadda. If you don’t want me to be “hateful” towards yo

Fucking computer. padders, stop making my computer fuck up.
As I was saying, if you don’t want me to be “hateful” towards you (and god I’m sick of people like you whining about others being “hateful”, you have absolutely no fucking idea what real hatefulness is), then keep your head down and shut the fuck up. You asked me to ignore you, well, that’s a two-way street, asking for a ceasefire doesn’t mean I put my gun down but you still get to shoot all you want.

Rann,

I never asked for a “ceasefire” - (what a funny anaology) I simply suggested that if I annoyed you so much you couldn’t reply to me without having a temper tantrum to not bother. I never suggested that I wouldn’t comment on your posts; I feel quite able to comment on what you say without having a huge hissy fit; as I have said you really don’t offend me like I obviously do you; I just find it sad.

Well, padders, I find mothers that smoke crack while they’re pregnant to be sad, so tell your mommy I’m very disappointed in her.

Maybe people here don’t care; but attacking him for it is completly unecessary

That’s why I didn’t attack him. I simply stated that I felt sharing that particular story at that particular time smelled a lot like emotional manipulation.  I’m not saying Rann is right in the way he’s saying this stuff, but he’s a big boy and can speak for himself.  I ain’t his daddy.

Makes sense Jim about the guy. Have to say though (i believe); that if Rann was a liberal acting like he does; you would be all over him.

Yeh well I ain’t.

I’m sorry you were put off - it was poignant to me because it had, literally, just happened to me the day before (or the day of, I’m not sure) I posted the story, which was just a few days after I responded as I did to the thread.

Now, that said, I don’t think that an argumentum a postiori in favor of soul and transcendent human value under rather more dire circumstances than Terri’s are, is, in fact, an invalid one merely because it puts you off: how you feel about it (whether you feel emotionally manipulated) doesn’t change the facts of the stated case.

This whole Easter Triduum has been an vivid experience in the minds of many Catholics - and for many of us, Terri is there, somewhere, in her own Passion.

Maybe, just maybe, the view of life you take, which leads you to your conclusions about Terri, is, in fact, fundamentally and profoundly deficient.

(I’m tired: I should have said ‘Terri’s or JP’s is’ - I’ve been on a Terri-blogger-commenting kick lately and just re-ran across this particular thread while grepping around. My final set of thoughts is encapsulated here.)