Off With The Catholic's Head...

[Sparko]

No, your position was that the students — particularly those allegedly chanting "We are Hamas" — were aligning themselves with a terrorist group and should be arrested. When asked if the same applied to a group chanting "We are Israel", in light of the recent mass graves discovered implicating the IDF in war crimes, you responded "no". You weren't making your statement on the basis of laws being broken.

-Sam

"We are Hamas" is not "supporting Hamas" - please see Hypatia for a lesson on using language accurately. I said if they are Hamas, then they must be terrorists. Terrorists should be arrested. It was sarcasm about them claiming to be Hamas.

I think the protestors should be arrested for breaking and entering, vandalism, trespassing, etc.

[Sam]

"We are Hamas" is not "supporting Hamas" - please see Hypatia for a lesson on using language accurately. I said if they are Hamas, then they must be terrorists. Terrorists should be arrested. It was sarcasm about them claiming to be Hamas.

I think the protestors should be arrested for breaking and entering, vandalism, trespassing, etc.

The relevant passages do not reflect a sarcastic tone:

Some of them have even been chanting "We are HAMAS!"

That's pro-terrorism. They probably should be arrested. If they truly claim they are HAMAS then they are terrorists according to the US government.

A mass grave next to a hospital was just unearthed, with the bodies of medical personnel, patients, and civilians who were apparently killed during the IDF raid of the hospital.

Given the Israeli military's conduct in Gaza, would you consider students chanting "We are ISRAEL!" to be a pro-terrorist slogan justifying arrest?

-Sam

no.

Well, that seems to be a problem with objectivity. If the Israeli military is engaging in terroristic activity, as has now been at least as credibly documented as Hamas' terroristic activity, what moral ground are you standing on that allows the condemnation (and arrest!) of one group of supporters but not the other?

If we are standing on principle, I don't see anything false in condemning both Hamas and IDF for their campaigns of terror against Israelis and Palestinians. But if you're openly calling for the arrest of one group of Americans practicing their 1st Amendment rights for their support of Hamas but not another group of Americans for their support of the Israeli military, what principle are you using to justify that position?

-Sam

The IDF are not terrorists. They are responding to a terrorist attack. HAMAS uses civilians and hospitals as shields. Their deaths are on HAMAS not the IDF. HAMAS has been designated a terrorist organization by most of the world and by the USA since the 1990's. There is no comparison between the Israeli military and the HAMAS Terrorists. That you do tells me all I need to know about your lack of discernment.

Same arguments, such as they are, apply to the Israeli military. We've seen videos of IDF soldiers killing civilians — not in order to kill a Hamas soldier shooting from behind them at IDF soldiers but when those civilians were walking in the street or crouching beside a bed, or sitting in a car. We've witnessed IDF, multiple times now, raid entire hospital complexes, killing many (if not most) of the civilians and medical personnel inside. Arguing that all those deaths are attributable to Hamas — that IDF has no real agency in how its soldiers operate the war — isn't just absurd, it's engaging in exactly the same evil that you're condemning in these protestors for their support of Hamas terrorists. After all, many of those protesters will say, with just as much justification, that Hamas was responding to ongoing terrorist activities perpetrated by IDF against Gazans on October 7.

That doesn't make what they're saying or doing right, of course. But don't imagine for a second that you've set yourself in a more moral position after everything we've seen in this war.

-Sam

Like I said, you lack discernment Sam.

But we seem to be back on the side of anti-cancel culture, for the moment at least.

-Sam

[Sparko]

The relevant passages do not reflect a sarcastic tone:

But we seem to be back on the side of anti-cancel culture, for the moment at least.

-Sam

I am not against someone getting cancelled/fired if they actually DID something terrible. Like say, beating his girlfriend. But just giving a religious value based speech at a religious school? No.

[Diogenes]

I thought they wanted to empower women to do whatever they wanted to do. That would include being a mother and taking care of their children if that is what they want. Who the hell wants to give their entire life to a job and some boss that probably hates them? The reason we work is to take care of our families because they are what is important in our lives.

The Left doesn't want mothers, it wants birthing persons and the State will rear the child.

[seanD]

Then they are idiots...

The fact he says this about his wife: "Isabelle's dream of having a career might not have come true" seems to indicate his wife was planning a career, but because he established a career as a pro athlete, they felt financially secure enough for her to put that off. It would be interesting for someone to ask him if he wasn't a rich pro athlete and his family was struggling financially, if things would be different, and if so, then that would make him a hypocrite.

[NorrinRadd]

Not to mention it is number one in women's sizes

I heard the women's sizes actually sold out.

[NorrinRadd]

The only thing I would argue is that the highest calling of any one, man or woman is to serve God. He did leave out that a few of the women will likely be members of religious orders or consecrated virgins (lay or third order). I mean what woman called as a religious wouldn't want to change the world the way Mother Teresa or St Frances Cabrini did? That said, Butker is young and so in the name of charity I am going to assume he didn't say everything he wanted to say.

Transcript here.

[NorrinRadd]

I would imagine what the guy said would be in line with Question 44 of the Supplement to the Third Part. All I know is that he thanked his wife for her support as a wife and mother so I don't know what all the hubbub is about.

That said, I disagree with the complimentarians that gender roles are normative or necessarily based in Scripture after all, Lydia was a seller of purple but I would have disagreements with egalitarians.

Ok, gotta ask: What disagreements with egalitarians?

[tabibito]

Transcript here.

The speech is something of a mixed bag, but nothing in it comes within coo-ee of being misogynistic.

if we are going to be men and women for this time in history, we need to stop pretending that the 'church of nice' is a winning proposition.

Excellent point.

It is not prudent as the laity for us to consume ourselves in becoming amateur theologians so that we can decipher this or that theological teaching

Dreadful point.

[NorrinRadd]

The speech is something of a mixed bag, but nothing in it comes within coo-ee of being misogynistic.

if we are going to be men and women for this time in history, we need to stop pretending that the 'church of nice' is a winning proposition.

Excellent point.

It is not prudent as the laity for us to consume ourselves in becoming amateur theologians so that we can decipher this or that theological teaching

Dreadful point.

As an evangelical, and particularly one influenced by several of Gordon Fee's essays, I found his exaltation of the clergy almost blasphemous.

"[K]issing their rings"?

[tabibito]

As an evangelical, and particularly one influenced by several of Gordon Fee's essays, I found his exaltation of the clergy almost blasphemous.

It is pretty much a replay of the old Sadducee attitude, with the Pharisees dissenting (part of the rationale behind the Pharisees setting up synagogues and schools).

[Sparko]

The speech is something of a mixed bag, but nothing in it comes within coo-ee of being misogynistic.

if we are going to be men and women for this time in history, we need to stop pretending that the 'church of nice' is a winning proposition.

Excellent point.

It is not prudent as the laity for us to consume ourselves in becoming amateur theologians so that we can decipher this or that theological teaching

Dreadful point.

Coo-ee? That's how they call the pigs in?

no, wait, that's "soo-ee!"

[tabibito]

Coo-ee? That's how they call the pigs in?

no, wait, that's "soo-ee!"

https://www.google.com/search?q=cooe...J3__1s6n0,st:0

Volume has to be turned up pretty high to hear the echoes.

[rogue06]

Coo-ee? That's how they call the pigs in?

no, wait, that's "soo-ee!"

And the countdown for the arrival of OBP begins.

[Sparko]

https://www.google.com/search?q=cooe...J3__1s6n0,st:0

Volume has to be turned up pretty high to hear the echoes.

So basically Down Under Yodeling.