<p>
</p>
<p>Baelor doesn’t seem to think so and since he/she demands other prove their opinions, I just thought I would hold him/her to the same standard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, man, I really feel bad for you. This is going to be painful.</p>
<p>Did you notice all the quotation marks in that post? It’s because it’s, let’s say, the Catholic Church speaking, not me. I’m not here to defend their views, my views (which I have tried to avoid bringing into the discussion, although I believe in one post I said “BTW…this is my opinion, just throwing it out there.”), or anyone’s views. As I have said many times, my sole goal here is to draw attention to the fact that others believe principle X, not that they are justified in doing so or that X is correct or that all those people are morons or that their process is more sensible than someone else’s process.</p>
<p>In other words, you’re asking me to prove other people’s opinions when, since the beginning of my posting here, I have made it clear that I am not interested in being an apologist for any set of views, rather, I am just noting that they exist, given that that set of views was being largely ignored. If they are stupid (and posters on this thread indeed felt that way), fine – we can address possible inconsistencies. But I’m still not going to play the game of supporting a particular viewpoint because that’s not why I’m here.</p>
<p>In other words, if you had read my posts at all, your last two posts wouldn’t have been made at all. I have repeated this in almost every post in the last several pages.</p>
<p>Please stop lying and saying that you understand what people are saying when that is a literally impossible situation given the obvious ignorance/lack of understanding that your posts convey.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above.</p>
<p>Again, I don’t lie.</p>
<p>So none of what I requested proof of is your opinion or belief? I really find that hard to believe since you are rigorously defending them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What you find hard to believe is irrelevant. Stop projecting. One could quite easily attempt to defend a viewpoint that one abhors as a purely intellectual project.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your reading comprehension is ostensibly poor. Observe:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if one could misconstrue Baelor’s posts as “defenses” of certain viewpoints, I could hardly characterize said posts as “rigorous” defenses.</p>
<p>The way I see it if someone is as adamant about a position an institution holds as Baelor is, he is either an employee of that institution or is a fervent believer of the beliefs of that institution. Either way, Baelor’s constant excuse “these are not my views” is a load or Baelor would not be that adamant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be the preferable option for you, given the alternative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It may or may not be my opinion. Whether it is is irrelevant because, as my last post made clear to everyone but you, I am not writing a CC apologetics for views on contraception. My purpose is not to explain and defend my own views on this subject, and therefore it is irrelevant whether the view I posted is my own or not since I’m not even trying to defend it at all, merely state that it does indeed exist and that those who follow it are not necessarily idiots or psychopaths, much like almost any belief. I have not attempted to argue them as true because I honestly have no interest in doing so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Show me. Show me where.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not adamant about any position. Show me where I have openly embraced this particular viewpoint in an attempt to defend it.</p>
<p>My first post was simply that there are people who oppose artificial BC. I mentioned in one post that I was against contraception, but then stated I was not interested in debating that issue. The rest of my posts have been from a purposefully detached perspective. Go ahead and read them.</p>
<p>There is no point in arguing this with you since you are constantly backpedaling. You are adamant about everything you post.</p>
<p>What I have posted in this thread is my opinion and has never been presented by me as fact. You might not like it or agree with it and frankly, I don’t care if you do, but I am entitled to it.</p>
<p>What do you mean by “adamant”?</p>
<p>Inflexible
Rigid
Uncompromising</p>
<p>Understand?</p>
<p>Why <em>should</em> Baelor be flexible, malleable, or compromising? For what <em>reason</em>?</p>
<p>"You might not like it or agree with it and frankly, I don’t care if you do, but I am entitled to it. "</p>
<p>I think that this is the point that Baelor is trying to assert.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not backpedaling at all. I have remained consistent throughout this thread to avoid charges of backpedaling.</p>
<p>Again, now your posts are just “blahblahblah.” I’m sorry that you don’t like me, but you should really consider…pointing out examples of all of these charges in order to save your own face. Otherwise, as I said, it’s just mindless blabber that no one can do anything with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would hope that everyone is adamant about what they post, otherwise we would have a forum of disingenuous members who are talking past each other in half-truths and lies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course it is your opinion. But when you say “Following moral belief is incorrect, period,” that is perceived as a fact to the reader. With no explanation and no caveat as to the fact it’s your opinion, the presentation is by definition factual. I’m sorry if that bothers you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Duh. That’s what I’m arguing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Give me a reason not to be. Most of the things I’ve stated leave no room for disagreement. Or are these statements too “inflexible” for you?</p>
<p>.The Catholic Church institutionally believes X.
.There are some people who believe Y.</p>
<p>OMG!!11!! So adamant and ridiculous!</p>
<p>Start pointing out specific instances of your laughable “charges,” and maybe I’ll think of you as something more than someone who annoys me for fun.</p>
<p>This is strange - I think I agree with Baelor (no offense intended).</p>
<p>Perceived as fact by you but never presented as such by me.</p>
<p>Are the “charges” you refer to the same as your other quoted items?</p>
<p>You are arguing your opinion as fact. Look back over your posts. I don’t have the time nor the desire to do that.</p>
<p>BalconyBoy- not once has Baelor argued his/her opinion as fact. They have simply stated their own opinions and the opinions of others (Catholic church doctrine).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:* Thank you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I explained to you how the presentation of your “points” was as fact. Disagree, fine. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not supporting points, etc. Being inflexible, etc. Talking at all, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that it’s the fact that I did look over my posts that leads me to disagree with you.</p>
<p>We get it. You don’t actually have any evidence because it simply does not exist. Or, you’re lazy. Either way, it is clear that you have nothing to contribute, so stop spamming this thread and give it up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmmm… Then how do you justify the changes in the Catholic church if you are an absolutist?</p>
<p>Changes? LOL. You clearly know nothing about the Catholic Church or the degrees of infallibility of its teachings or the distinction between matters of faith and morals and discipline, so I suggest starting a new thread and flaunting your ignorance there.</p>
<p>This is not the place to correct your misunderstanding of Catholicism. The Church was, is, and remains a morally absolutist entity with regards to many moral issues.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Didn’t the Catholic church change the fasting time before communion?
Didn’t the Catholic church change from only going to church on Sunday as counting to Saturday and Sunday counts?
Didn’t the Catholic change that babies who were could now go the heaven?
Didn’t the Catholic church change the veneration of saints?
Didn’t the Catholic church change from a Latin mass to English?
Didn’t the Catholic church change from communion on the tongue to communion in the hand?</p>
<p>“Didn’t the Catholic change that babies who were could now go the heaven?
Didn’t the Catholic church change the veneration of saints?”</p>
<p>Really, these are the only ones that matter in your argument. The rest are more of procedural matters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Stop embarrassing yourself further. This is just pathetic.</p>