Snoopy contraception bet

[Ben Kenobi]

And we're all forced to pay for running over people when I buy car insurance.

Not unless you use a car. That's two analogies that don't apply.

There are ways for me to avoid paying car insurance. Not so with Obamacare.

I'd argue for it's outright ban. Not easy availability and purchase for adults.
That's your preference, and what you want the government to do.

No, it's not. Sorry. You can lie all you want, but I explicitly said that just because I believe something doesn't mean that I want the government to enforce my beliefs. I believe that no one should use contraception - yet I don't believe the government should ban it.

I'm sorry you can't understand that concept, because as a liberal you equate, "I believe this", with "the government should do it".

[kentonio]

Couple things here.

1, I don't support public financing for the nation's largest for-profit abortion clinic. So I located myself in the state that actually defunded Planned parenthood altogether.

The federal government provide funding. By basing yourself in America with the expectation that you will pay some form of federal taxes, you are contributing to contraception.

2, If you're argument is that Catholics are already forced to pay for something that it's ok to make them pay even more, is a terrible one. That's like arguing that you've killed one person, what's killing another?

You weren't being forced to pay anything. You chose to move to the US, and did that in full knowledge of what that entails.

3, Precisely how, have I actually violated my beliefs based on information you have?

You've spent the last year whining like a little ***** about how unfair it is that you should be 'forced' to contribute to paying for contraception. You knowingly moved to the US, despite that move ensuring you would be doing so. Thus you are a hypocrite.

4, Are you suggesting that Canada has less liberal laws than the United States? I could turn it around and say that by moving I am actually acting in accordance with my beliefs by moving to an area with far more respect for Catholic beliefs.

Complete and utter bull****. You chose to move to the US. No-one made you. You could be living in the Philippines like Aeson, or Somalia or pretty much any other country on the planet. Instead you chose the nice rich country next door that you love, and you did it in full knowledge that it meant compromising your beliefs.

So basically, please STFU and own your decisions. A nice life in the US meant more to you than any of this contraception crap, so man the **** up and stop pretending.

[N35t0r]

Not unless you use a car. That's two analogies that don't apply.

There are ways for me to avoid paying car insurance. Not so with Obamacare.

The evil government is also forcing me to pay for torture

No, it's not. Sorry. You can lie all you want,

**** off.

but I explicitly said that just because I believe something doesn't mean that I want the government to enforce my beliefs.

And until you quote where I said otherwise, you're a dumb liar who doesn't know the first thing about arguments and logic.

I believe that no one should use contraception - yet I don't believe the government should ban it.

Good for you. You still think the government should not provide free access to contraception, and you want to impose this preference on everybody.
Just because your personal beliefs are even more extreme does not mean you don't want to impose your preference on everyone.

I'm sorry you can't understand that concept, because as a liberal you equate, "I believe this", with "the government should do it".

*sigh*

You really can't wrap around your head around it, can you?

[dannubis]

STOP QUOTING BEN !!!!

[Guynemer]

I know, right?

It's like a double dose of bat**** insanity.

[Wezil]

Ben is just being Ben.

It's the people that continue to "debate" him that are concerning.

[snoopy369]

Nope. I'm willing to agree to this:
I'm fine with C. The terms need to be revised so that it is unambiguous. If the Catechism changes, that satisfies your condition of a change in the teachings of the Catholic church. If we're going to have an ajudicator since I'm the Catholic, I'll select someone that Jag can consult.

Who said you're the only Catholic here? I think Jaguar is the best adjudicator; he knows both of us. I'm certainly not willing to agree to anyone I don't know.

I'll agree that it must be a change to the catechism, with the caveat that if the Pope speaks ex cathedra in an unambiguous manner that be considered sufficient (I have no idea how long an actual change in the catechism takes to be implemented, but a Papal statement ex cathedra would be an unambiguous indication that it is permitted.)

[Ben Kenobi]

Who said you're the only Catholic here?

Never said that.

I think Jaguar is the best adjudicator; he knows both of us. I'm certainly not willing to agree to anyone I don't know.

I'm fine with having Jag adjudicate based on his understanding.

I'll agree that it must be a change to the catechism, with the caveat that if the Pope speaks ex cathedra in an unambiguous manner that be considered sufficient (I have no idea how long an actual change in the catechism takes to be implemented, but a Papal statement ex cathedra would be an unambiguous indication that it is permitted.)

You'd be better off with my suggestion. There have only been two such statements ex-cathedra in the past 150 years. Ieffabilius Deus (for the Immaculate conception of Mary), and Munificentissimus Deus, on her Assumption. Pius XII, whom I sincerely doubt any of the Polytubbies remember was the last to use it. The catechism changes more frequently than you'll see statements ex-cathedra. Odds are bad that we'd even see one during our lifetimes.

[snoopy369]

Never said that.

I mean amongst the two of us.

I'm fine with having Jag adjudicate based on his understanding.



You'd be better off with my suggestion. There have only been two such statements ex-cathedra in the past 150 years. Ieffabilius Deus (for the Immaculate conception of Mary), and Munificentissimus Deus, on her Assumption. Pius XII, whom I sincerely doubt any of the Polytubbies remember was the last to use it. The catechism changes more frequently than you'll see statements ex-cathedra. Odds are bad that we'd even see one during our lifetimes.

I mean to include both - catechism change or ex cathedra statement. Admittedly the latter is unlikely, but given I think the impetus is nearly entirely from the Pope, I'd like to include that.

[Ben Kenobi]

And until you quote where I said otherwise, you're a dumb liar who doesn't know the first thing about arguments and logic.

I did. If I sincerely believed that my beliefs on contraception should be applied by the government, I would argue for contraception's ban, not it's availability to folks willing to pay for it. I think if folks want it they should be willing to pay for it.

Good for you.

So, then. Concede that I'm not willing to impose my beliefs on other people, whereas you are willing to impose your beliefs on me.

You still think the government should not provide free access to contraception

Yes, and? I'm opposed to the free **** brigade. You want contraception, pay for it.

Just because your personal beliefs are even more extreme does not mean you don't want to impose your preference on everyone.

Yes, it does mean that I don't wish to impose my beliefs on contraception on others. I just reject you trying to impose your will and desires on everyone else. It's a two-way street. You get your contraception, but you don't get to force me to pay for it.

[Ben Kenobi]

I mean to include both - catechism change or ex cathedra statement. Admittedly the latter is unlikely, but given I think the impetus is nearly entirely from the Pope, I'd like to include that.

One implies the other. Statements by the Pope 'ex cathedra' would be accompanied by a new Catechism. That's what happened last time. I'm not going to lawyer that, if the Pope grants contraception ex cathedra and the catechism is delayed for whatever reason, you win.

[Ben Kenobi]

The federal government provide funding. By basing yourself in America with the expectation that you will pay some form of federal taxes, you are contributing to contraception.

Yes, and?

You weren't being forced to pay anything. You chose to move to the US, and did that in full knowledge of what that entails.

Was Obamacare the law of the land when I moved?

You've spent the last year whining like a little ***** about how unfair it is that you should be 'forced' to contribute to paying for contraception. You knowingly moved to the US, despite that move ensuring you would be doing so. Thus you are a hypocrite.

Was Obamacare the law of the land when I moved?

Complete and utter bull****. You chose to move to the US. No-one made you. You could be living in the Philippines like Aeson, or Somalia or pretty much any other country on the planet. Instead you chose the nice rich country next door that you love, and you did it in full knowledge that it meant compromising your beliefs.

Again, if America is more supportive of Catholic beliefs than Canada, I am acting in accordance with my Catholic beliefs by moving here. Especially given Governor Perry eliminating state funding for planned parenthood. Not all the states are similar, and Texas is the best.

A nice life in the US meant more to you than any of this contraception crap

You're wrong about that, btw. Again I ask the question, "was Obamacare the law of the land when I moved?" No, no it wasn't.

[snoopy369]

Democracy means allowing the majority to impose their will on you, within limitations defined in the Constitution. [And the 1st Amendment grants you freedom to believe what you want and to attend church services/etc. freely, not a guarantee that every law will conform to your religion - otherwise polygamy would be legal, for example.]

[Ben Kenobi]

Democracy means allowing the majority to impose their will on you, within limitations defined in the Constitution. [And the 1st Amendment grants you freedom to believe what you want and to attend church services/etc. freely, not a guarantee that every law will conform to your religion - otherwise polygamy would be legal, for example.

Actually the First, at this point, provides no protections for me. What does is Gov. Perry and the Texas attorney general barring the feds from enforcement on any Texas resident.

The First actually provides the right for American citizens to free exercise of their religion. This includes protection for Catholic citizens from paying for contraception, which is contrary to what we believe.

[snoopy369]

That's where you're entirely wrong. Free exercise of your religion has been held to be limited to attending worship services and such. It is _not_ a guarantee that every law conform to your religion - again, polygamy is illegal even for those in religions permitting it or even requiring it (were that to exist). You are free to not use contraception and to tell others not to. You are _not_ free to stop paying taxes because some tax money goes to it, nor are you guaranteed that US policy will conform to your religion. You're free to argue to change US policy, but you have no privilege in the argument arising from the religious nature of your objection.