Perfidious charities, Catholic and Protestant

[Jesse]

I don't actually care where you get your news from, I'm merely commenting on their lack of quality given that they produced you.



It's toxic because the Catholic Church is an ally in their illegal immigration schemes. They also sheltered Planned Parenthood from the Gosnell debacle. They don't care about sexual abuse and only cried about the Catholic Priest scandal because it benefited them since the RCC and the MSM clash on sexuality. If you have poz priests [s]raping children[/s]cruising for teen boy behind you can just paint them as hypocrites when they oppose gay marriage. The idea that the Catholic Church is an enemy of the mainstream media in general is retarded and largely concocted by paranoid Catholics. In reality the media and the RCC will gladly collude when interests intersect.

Anyway, this is STILL a logical fallacy. Rather than go through the article and its sources and writing a proper rebuttal you take the lazy way out and assert that you won't believe a word of an article unless it has mainstream media corroboration.



No, just several black acquaintances. I feel no need whatsoever to have any black friends in particular because I don't consider black people to be Sacred Objects to be adored and valued, or Pokemon to be collected. I don't care if people think, insinuate or claim that I raycis's, in part because there's nothing inherently wrong with being racist and in part because everybody (particularly minorities) appear to be quite comfortable with their own racism, which is rarely if ever criticized. But by all means, don't let me stop you from signaling your devoted adherence to the antirayciss'm cult, I know that's how you people jockey for social status.



Yeah, why would an anti-mass immigration web site hire white nationalists? Clearly the only explanation is that they're white nationalists (don't start with the "lean" goalpost shifting).



http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/2...ips-on-romney/
http://townhall.com/columnists/patbu...ture/page/full
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/10...eally-smarter/



WHICH CLAIMS? You haven't actually quoted a single word from the article so far. Literally. I actually wasted time going through every single post you made in this thread and I don't see you commenting on the actual article even once.

Not sure why you brought it up though. Just commenting because?

Oh I see. So there is a conspiracy between the Catholic Church and mainstream media. Both are aligned in their immigration stance and therefore, the mainstream media will ignore this blockbuster VDare reporting? Am I getting this paranoid delusion right?

Well you twisted my arm, so I went and read the article. More than half of it is whining about how much money the Church is getting from grants and other sources. Not until the very end does he try to shoehorn in his crackpot theory. With no evidence mind you but this:

Is the refugee program helping the Catholic hierarchy keep the red ink at bay—and paying executive salaries well into the six figures at local affiliates around the country wherever Catholic Charities is imposing refugees?.

That right there is some crack reporting.

It has nothing to do with this not being picked up by mainstream reporters, this has to do with there being no facts to back up the conclusion. Conjecture and guessing isn't proof. And that is why no one is bothering with it. So please, get something better than this.

That was of course directed at:

It's telling because you think a web site that posts the syndicated column of a southeast Asian is a "white nationalist" web site.

Like that means something. I could care less who is or isn't racist. But cowards usualy don't like to admit it.

Yes. I said they hire white nationalists which is true. So yes their articles would lean white nationalist. Why are you making this more complicated then it is? I said they were a conspiratorial site that hires white nationalists even though they say they are not white nationalists. Make of that what you will. Where is the goal shifting? Is there a white nationalist barometer I don't know about? Are you only white nationalist if it's full on?

Thank you for those links. I was wrong and they have been quoted by sympathetic media.

You are correct. I didn't quote from the article. For the same reasons why I don't quote from a Onion or Salon article. It's a waste of everyones time. But I did just for you and now I feel dumber having done so.

Hey, you and Epoetker can continue to throw out all the factless conspiracies you want. No one is trying to stop you. Carry on you two.

[Darth Executor]

I am not sure why you think I would get news from Reason or Patheos. I do read Ben Witherington on Patheos though.

I don't actually care where you get your news from, I'm merely commenting on their lack of quality given that they produced you.

Well before you go fully unhinged on this, let's keep it simple. We are talking about a specific article that is talking about Catholic Charities using a refugee racket to pay off sex crimes. You are telling me no mainstream media outlet wouldn't be salivating to get that on the front page of everywhere? That would hardly be toxic to them since you both have the same enemy.

It's toxic because the Catholic Church is an ally in their illegal immigration schemes. They also sheltered Planned Parenthood from the Gosnell debacle. They don't care about sexual abuse and only cried about the Catholic Priest scandal because it benefited them since the RCC and the MSM clash on sexuality. If you have poz priests [s]raping children[/s]cruising for teen boy behind you can just paint them as hypocrites when they oppose gay marriage. The idea that the Catholic Church is an enemy of the mainstream media in general is retarded and largely concocted by paranoid Catholics. In reality the media and the RCC will gladly collude when interests intersect.

Anyway, this is STILL a logical fallacy. Rather than go through the article and its sources and writing a proper rebuttal you take the lazy way out and assert that you won't believe a word of an article unless it has mainstream media corroboration.

Yes I know. And you have many black friends too, right?

No, just several black acquaintances. I feel no need whatsoever to have any black friends in particular because I don't consider black people to be Sacred Objects to be adored and valued, or Pokemon to be collected. I don't care if people think, insinuate or claim that I raycis's, in part because there's nothing inherently wrong with being racist and in part because everybody (particularly minorities) appear to be quite comfortable with their own racism, which is rarely if ever criticized. But by all means, don't let me stop you from signaling your devoted adherence to the antirayciss'm cult, I know that's how you people jockey for social status.

When a website says that they indeed do hire white nationalists to write for them, excuse me for thinking they might lean white nationalist. How silly of me.

Yeah, why would an anti-mass immigration web site hire white nationalists? Clearly the only explanation is that they're white nationalists (don't start with the "lean" goalpost shifting).

Ok, who are they quoted by that are sympathetic? If I am wrong about that, I will admit it. I haven't seen it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/2...ips-on-romney/
http://townhall.com/columnists/patbu...ture/page/full
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/10...eally-smarter/

I know you like to throw out your knowledge of fallacies. Can you give me any actual refutation though? My whole point is that their claims are not accurate.

WHICH CLAIMS? You haven't actually quoted a single word from the article so far. Literally. I actually wasted time going through every single post you made in this thread and I don't see you commenting on the actual article even once.

[Jesse]

The well was clean and the water in it sweeter than the gruel that pours out of Reason or Patheos or whatever garbage web site you go for your daily brain tickling.



What kind of stupid question is this? Why would mainstream media outlets (I assume you mean mainstream media, vdare gets plenty of use from other media outlets) quote a web site that is toxic to their evil agenda?



I highly doubt you've actually read even a fraction of what VDare posts. It's telling because you think a web site that posts the syndicated column of a southeast Asian is a "white nationalist" web site. They routinely comment on mainstream media news and use mainstream sources.



They ARE quoted by media outlets that would otherwise be sympathetic.

No MAINSTREAM media is sympathetic to them because their primary purpose is to stem the tide of third world refuse that both mainstream conservative and liberal elites want to use to turn America into their own personal banana republic. Why quote and answer them when they can just ignore them knowing useful idiots like you will just march along in your perpetual daze, never lifting a finger to stop your inevitable end, which looks somewhat like this, only less underpants and more conga line 70 men deep lining up behind you for the ultimate political rebuttal:



Nevermind that this entire post is just another giant logical fallacy. Even if no other web site quoted them it would have jack all to do with the accuracy of their claims.

I am not sure why you think I would get news from Reason or Patheos. I do read Ben Witherington on Patheos though.

Well before you go fully unhinged on this, let's keep it simple. We are talking about a specific article that is talking about Catholic Charities using a refugee racket to pay off sex crimes. You are telling me no mainstream media outlet wouldn't be salivating to get that on the front page of everywhere? That would hardly be toxic to them since you both have the same enemy.

Yes I know. And you have many black friends too, right? When a website says that they indeed do hire white nationalists to write for them, excuse me for thinking they might lean white nationalist. How silly of me.

Ok, who are they quoted by that are sympathetic? If I am wrong about that, I will admit it. I haven't seen it.

I know you like to throw out your knowledge of fallacies. Can you give me any actual refutation though? My whole point is that their claims are not accurate.

[Darth Executor]

How could I possibly poison a well that was poisoned before I got there?

The well was clean and the water in it sweeter than the gruel that pours out of Reason or Patheos or whatever garbage web site you go for your daily brain tickling.

Please tell me why no other media outlets use VDare as a source for anything at all?

What kind of stupid question is this? Why would mainstream media outlets (I assume you mean mainstream media, vdare gets plenty of use from other media outlets) quote a web site that is toxic to their evil agenda?

Why is it that nothing VDare posts can be verified by any other media outlet?

I highly doubt you've actually read even a fraction of what VDare posts. It's telling because you think a web site that posts the syndicated column of a southeast Asian is a "white nationalist" web site. They routinely comment on mainstream media news and use mainstream sources.

Even by ones that would be sympathetic? Could it be that they are not credible? God Forbid right?

They ARE quoted by media outlets that would otherwise be sympathetic.

No MAINSTREAM media is sympathetic to them because their primary purpose is to stem the tide of third world refuse that both mainstream conservative and liberal elites want to use to turn America into their own personal banana republic. Why quote and answer them when they can just ignore them knowing useful idiots like you will just march along in your perpetual daze, never lifting a finger to stop your inevitable end, which looks somewhat like this, only less underpants and more conga line 70 men deep lining up behind you for the ultimate political rebuttal:



Nevermind that this entire post is just another giant logical fallacy. Even if no other web site quoted them it would have jack all to do with the accuracy of their claims.

[Jesse]

Ad populum, ad hominem, poisoning the well, did I miss any more "arguments" that you've made?

How could I possibly poison a well that was poisoned before I got there? Please tell me why no other media outlets use VDare as a source for anything at all? Why is it that nothing VDare posts can be verified by any other media outlet? Even by ones that would be sympathetic? Could it be that they are not credible? God Forbid right?

[Darth Executor]

No, the analogy is correct Darth. VDare is a joke site. Though not an obvious one like the Onion. The whole reason why VDare does articles no one else will is because save for Slate, no one in their right mind would. It's a conspiratorial site that no one would quote from if they expect to be seen as credible.

Ad populum, ad hominem, poisoning the well, did I miss any more "arguments" that you've made?

[Jesse]

There is nothing to refute, "vdare lol" is not an argument, it's the animal bleating of an ignoramus and a textbook logical fallacy. The analogy with The Onion is stupid because The Onion is a joke website whereas Vdare is a decent source of news, and particularly news that don't make it into the librul dominated mainstream.

No, the analogy is correct Darth. VDare is a joke site. Though not an obvious one like the Onion. The whole reason why VDare does articles no one else will is because save for Slate, no one in their right mind would. It's a conspiratorial site that no one would quote from if they expect to be seen as credible.

[Darth Executor]

Of course the whole problem with that post of yours was that nothing I said was refuted. I think most people here would agree that if someone is using an Onion article as proof for an argument, then it shouldn't be taken seriously. Maybe you disagree.

There is nothing to refute, "vdare lol" is not an argument, it's the animal bleating of an ignoramus and a textbook logical fallacy. The analogy with The Onion is stupid because The Onion is a joke website whereas Vdare is a decent source of news, and particularly news that don't make it into the librul dominated mainstream.

[Jesse]

The one where you claim that a site belongs to a certain group because people of that group post there. It was so stupid I couldn't believe you'd give me such an easy shot. It's like massacring an island full of Norwegian Labour Party politicians' kids.

Oh that one! Ok Darth, I must ask for your forgiveness. I thought you were kidding. It was a post of so little substance I thought it was another one of your jokes. I even laughed at it later, my bad. Though I wouldn't call two measly posts "mercilessly" though. Mocking sure. Bad mocking. But it was still mocking.

Of course the whole problem with that post of yours was that nothing I said was refuted. I think most people here would agree that if someone is using an Onion article as proof for an argument, then it shouldn't be taken seriously. Maybe you disagree.

[Darth Executor]

Oh Darth, are you stalking me? When you asked me if I was a women, I didn't think much of it. But now, it is feeling a bit creepy. What post did you mercilessly mock? I missed it. Which means you are really bad at it.

The one where you claim that a site belongs to a certain group because people of that group post there. It was so stupid I couldn't believe you'd give me such an easy shot. It's like massacring an island full of Norwegian Labour Party politicians' kids.

[Jesse]

why is Jesse still posting, you'd think the nuclear grade stupid post I mercilessly mocked would be enough to make him rethink his priorities

Oh Darth, are you stalking me? When you asked me if I was a women, I didn't think much of it. But now, it is feeling a bit creepy. What post did you mercilessly mock? I missed it. Which means you are really bad at it.

[Darth Executor]

why is Jesse still posting, you'd think the nuclear grade stupid post I mercilessly mocked would be enough to make him rethink his priorities

[Truthseeker]

Of course not, but you never had an interest in doing so to begin with, given your eager willingness to employ the Monica Lewinsky Defense at the first sign of trouble. Get thee behind me, Clinton, your father was Ted Kennedy, and he was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

"Monica Lewinsky Defense"? You mean bombing the poor Serbs? Oh, "My answer depends on what you mean by 'is,'" right?

[Jesse]

Said the puppet.

You really don't like when facts are brought up that discount your bizarre conspiracies do you? Are you really that out of it? Please tell me though, who am I a puppet for? This should be enlightening.

[Spartacus]

Of course not, but you never had an interest in doing so to begin with, given your eager willingness to employ the Monica Lewinsky Defense at the first sign of trouble. Get thee behind me, Clinton, your father was Ted Kennedy, and he was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

Which part(s) of my summary are incorrect?