Ave Maria Florida

[Complexity]

Don't try it on with ceo_esq unless you're having a really good day.

He smile like a angel but he bite like a gator. Or the other way around? Anyway.

I'm having a great day. He already is fully aware of what I think of him, and why. We seem to have agreed to maintain a low level of contempt for each other.

 

[sackett]

Hold the cheese and double the blood on that last order

Okay, the penny finally dropped: OF COURSE a pizza manufacturer would back a 24/7 Catholic enclave! Think of the market for holy wafers! That Church of the Sixty-Five Foot Crux will need a triple-width loading dock just to handle them!

 

[sackett]

Meanwhile, back at the OP

We’re told that Tom Monaghastly is putting $250 mil US of his own money into his Have a Maria project. I wonder:

1. Is anybody else chipping in?
2. Do they expect a return on their money?
3. If they do realize a profit, how much goes to the Church?

If a heretic may be so bold as to wonder?

 

[Cleon]

well yeah, but you can buy 3 of them for $15.

There's not enough weed in North America to give me the munchies that badly.

 

[ceo_esq]

[ceo_esq] already is fully aware of what I think of him, and why. We seem to have agreed to maintain a low level of contempt for each other.

By no means do I hold you in any degree of contempt, Complexity. I hoped I had made that clear in this post. You have my respect and not infrequently my admiration. A little verbal sparring here and there does not detract from this; to the contrary, in fact.

 

[Elind]

Encourage you to meditate on the membership guidelines and on the relationship between the JREF's wider interests and the appearance of sectarian slurs on the forum? No? Are we setting the bar too high?

Give me a break. Address the issue. There is plenty of fun made of religion, particularly the fanatical kind as this thread is about, even though it happens to be papist instead of islamist.

Tell us what bar you are setting, please. No offense to anyone perhaps?

Should I show you some Papist cartoons?

 

[Elind]

Nobody's saying you can't offend. Just that we ought to be civilized about it.

How do you do that, from the perspective of the offended, that is?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Give me a break. Address the issue. There is plenty of fun made of religion, particularly the fanatical kind as this thread is about, even though it happens to be papist instead of islamist.

Tell us what bar you are setting, please. No offense to anyone perhaps?

Should I show you some Papist cartoons?

Are you really not able to distinguish between mocking something, and using an unacceptable slur? One can mock Judaism without utilizing the epithet Michael Jackson famously did in a song. The point some are making is that the word is offensive in itself. By all means, criticize away at Catholics and Catholicism. But you don't have to use the term "papist" to do so.

 

[TragicMonkey]

How do you do that, from the perspective of the offended, that is?

Choose your words better, is all. It's the vocabulary that's objectionable.

 

[Elind]

Are you really not able to distinguish between mocking something, and using an unacceptable slur? One can mock Judaism without utilizing the epithet Michael Jackson famously did in a song. The point some are making is that the word is offensive in itself. By all means, criticize away at Catholics and Catholicism. But you don't have to use the term "papist" to do so.

But you just said "papist"

I mock all those Catholics who would try to create their own little commune away from the rest of us, protestants, jews, atheists and all the others. I'll call them papists if I wish, which in my experience only means those who have a particular fondness for the Pope. I'm not Irish and as such it has no sectarian meaning as it might in the Isles. Does that help?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I mock all those Catholics who would try to create their own little commune away from the rest of us, protestants, jews, atheists and all the others.

Go ahead, nobody's stopping you.

I'll call them papists if I wish,

You have a right to do so. You also have the right to call black people "*******". Would you?

which in my experience

Irrelevant. It's the experience of others that counts when communicating. The term may not mean much to you, but it does to some of your audience.

only means those who have a particular fondness for the Pope. I'm not Irish and as such it has no sectarian meaning as it might in the Isles.

Then why adopt a term alien to your own culture, which is an offensive term in the culture in which it is used? How about "Paki"? It's not a rude term in the US; it's not used here at all. Yet where it IS used, it's offensive. Is there any point in coopting a slur from another culture, and attempting to redefine it as nonoffensive, claiming that in your culture it doesn't mean anything offensive?

Does that help?

It's clear that you simply don't care. The irony is that you hurt yourself and your arguments by using the term, because all of your criticisms of Catholicism, legitimate or not, will be dismissed out of hand as anti-Catholic bigotry. When you choose to adopt the vocabulary of bigots, it suggests you aren't interested in civil or rational discourse.

 

[Elind]

It's clear that you simply don't care. The irony is that you hurt yourself and your arguments by using the term, because all of your criticisms of Catholicism, legitimate or not, will be dismissed out of hand as anti-Catholic bigotry. When you choose to adopt the vocabulary of bigots, it suggests you aren't interested in civil or rational discourse.

You are engaging in purely emotional, not rational, discourse.

Any rational catholic will not be offended and I do not think the word is as derogatory as you think, nor was it made in a blanket condemnation as you keep suggesting.

I am expressing contempt of those who would withdraw from society to the extent that creating a town for "them" primarily. That can be applied to other groups too, but this discussion is about this one only.

You sound like just another one who thinks all beliefs should be respected just because they are beliefs, and then rant on about bigotry as if all that is, is saying a word in a specific context.

You obviously are one who dismisses all argument if you run into a word you think is not nice. Sounds an awful lot like those who stop thinking when they just hear about some cartoons.



.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You are engaging in purely emotional, not rational, discourse.

Am I? What is rational about deliberately adopting a term alien to your culture, which is highly offensive in the culture in which it is used? The only logical reason to do so would be to piss people off.

Any rational catholic will not be offended and I do not think the word is as derogatory as you think, nor was it made in a blanket condemnation as you keep suggesting.

And you could say the same thing about any epithet. Would that make it true?

I am expressing contempt of those who would withdraw from society to the extent that creating a town for "them" primarily. That can be applied to other groups too, but this discussion is about this one only.

Again, I don't care what you're arguing. I'm merely pointing out that the term you're using to do so is offensive.

You sound like just another one who thinks all beliefs should be respected just because they are beliefs, and then rant on about bigotry as if all that is, is saying a word in a specific context.

You are mistaken. And again, if you deliberately adopt the vocabulary of bigots, the result is to be tarred with the same brush. Why are you so attached to using the term, if it means nothing?

You obviously are one who dismisses all argument if you run into a word you think is not nice. Sounds an awful lot like those who stop thinking when they just hear about some cartoons.

You don't know me at all. And again, why are you so insistent on using that particular term? If you're not a bigoted anti-Catholic, why are you deliberately taking steps to sound like one?

 

[Elind]

Papist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Papist is a slur referring to "Roman Catholics". It was coined during the English Reformation to indicate one who believed in Papal supremacy over all Christians. Over time, as the political nature of the struggle between Protestants and Roman Catholics became heated, it became a pejorative for Roman Catholics. The word ultimately derives from Latin papa, meaning "Pope". "Popish" is an adjective used much in the same vein.

Since we seem to be in a debate about semantics and their offensiveness, as opposed to the topic of the thread, the above certainly defines the word as a "slur", which is what you object to so vehemently.

Yet, my entire point was specifically and quite obviously, I think, to "slur" only those who wish to label themselves as different and outside all others by creating their own little commune for their own kind. I don't for a moment think that applies to all Catholics, and I've already made that quite clear.

Why you persist to so strongly object to this opinion, by the use of a very specifically directed word, is puzzling to me. They, those who want to isiolate themselves in this way, are very well well described by that word, PAPIST.

If you are not one, what is your problem? If you are one, that IS your problem.

And you could say the same thing about any epithet. Would that make it true?

That depends on the context and how presented. I hear the word ****** used all the time in movies, on TV and in some neighborhoods. Mostly it is used as a term of belonging, sometimes not, but you have never heard me say it in the NOT context.

Again, I don't care what you're arguing. I'm merely pointing out that the term you're using to do so is offensive.

I'm pointing out that you are stuck on semantics without context or meaning.

You are mistaken. And again, if you deliberately adopt the vocabulary of bigots, the result is to be tarred with the same brush. Why are you so attached to using the term, if it means nothing?

I'm not attached to it. You are attached to getting emotional about it. I used it to denigrate a particular attitude that I think deserves that. I have yet to hear you address that primary issue.

You don't know me at all. And again, why are you so insistent on using that particular term? If you're not a bigoted anti-Catholic, why are you deliberately taking steps to sound like one?

I'm not insistent. I used it once and have ever since defended that use thanks only to your sensitivities. As to Catholics, aside from their veneration of Icons (Muslims beware), they are just another religion, but one with one very distiguishing aspect that I admire, even sometimes reluctantly, and that is that they don't denigrate science like many others. They accept their god as designing evolution. That makes them about the most civilized of the Christian sects, excepting the papist isolationists of course.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yet, my entire point was specifically and quite obviously, I think, to "slur" only those who wish to label themselves as different and outside all others by creating their own little commune for their own kind. I don't for a moment think that applies to all Catholics, and I've already made that quite clear.

But that's not what the word "papist" means. The slur is a slur against all Catholics. You can't use it then say "I only meant those Catholics". That's not how language works; you don't get to change the meanings of words as you please.

Why you persist to so strongly object to this opinion, by the use of a very specifically directed word, is puzzling to me. They, those who want to isiolate themselves in this way, are very well well described by that word, PAPIST.

No, they are not. The term means "Catholic", not "this particular bunch of Catholics". If you wanted to criticize Israeli politicians, could you call them "kikes", then act perplexed when people object and say "I didn't mean Jews in other places, just Israel's leaders"?

If you are not one, what is your problem? If you are one, that IS your problem.

Some people like civility, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

I'm pointing out that you are stuck on semantics without context or meaning.

Are a deconstructionist? Words have meaning, and history. If you make a sloppy vocabulary choice, don't expect to get out of the flak by attempting to redefine a word to mean something else.

I'm not attached to it. You are attached to getting emotional about it. I used it to denigrate a particular attitude that I think deserves that. I have yet to hear you address that primary issue.

Because I'm not interested in discussing that. I merely wished to point out the incivility of your terminology, and since then have been attempting to explain why you shouldn't use it.

I'm not insistent. I used it once and have ever since defended that use thanks only to your sensitivities.

It's called an argument. We disagree over the propriety of the use of a term. As long as you persist in defending the use of that term, I will persist in arguing against it. If you wish to stop, then either agree to disagree or concede the point.

As to Catholics, aside from their veneration of Icons (Muslims beware), they are just another religion, but one with one very distiguishing aspect that I admire, even sometimes reluctantly, and that is that they don't denigrate science like many others. They accept their god as designing evolution. That makes them about the most civilized of the Christian sects, excepting the papist isolationists of course.

What do you expect, that Catholics everywhere will be thrilled by your endorsement? Enough to overlook your perplexing fondness for the vocabulary of anti-Catholics?

 

[supercorgi]

Nobody's saying you can't offend. Just that we ought to be civilized about it.

The term "papist" is inappropriate in an argument against the Catholic stance on homosexuality anyway, as it is a specifically Protestant epithet used to express their disdain for the Catholic doctrine of having a pope.

Personally, I prefer the term "idolater" but then again, I guess that refers to more religions than Catholicism.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Personally, I prefer the term "idolater" but then again, I guess that refers to more religions than Catholicism.

They're not idols, they're just statues. Meant to help foster piety by allowing the faithful to reflect on the holy lives of the gods. Saints! I mean, saints! Not gods. No relation to pagan gods at all. Saints. Good, clean, Christian saints. Yep.

 

[Orwell]

I dunno, to me, being called a papist is kind of like being called a scalawag: an old insult that lost meaning because of its archaic nature.

 

[Elind]

It's called an argument. We disagree over the propriety of the use of a term. As long as you persist in defending the use of that term, I will persist in arguing against it. If you wish to stop, then either agree to disagree or concede the point.

OK. So we get to the nitty gritty (old enough term for you?)

You are disinterested in discussing what I wanted to discuss, but instead wish to gnaw on how I said it, whatever.

It seems to me that you have a problem with sensitivity to what is commonly called PC. No antibiotics available for that I'm afraid.

PC is a terrible affliction, I'll admit. Clouds everything in a fog of conflicting emotions.

There is however a way to a cure, and it's called understanding context and intent. Unfortunately, however, if one is incapable of distinguishing context and intent from one's own preconceived anticipations of context and intent, then one is truly screwed. The world will continue to revolve around one's own fantasies in a narrowing spiral until the very end

I'm sorry, but there is nothing more I can do. Perhaps exercise might help. Ever try hiking?

 

[Elind]

I dunno, to me, being called a papist is kind of like being called a scalawag: an old insult that lost meaning because of its archaic nature.

But there can be great weight to age, don't you think?