opebo Week: A Celebration of His Life & Times

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So you're in the camp with Nathan that religious people are simply too simpleminded to be logically consistent? I was merely giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are not, but they merely view child abuse as a Religious Privilege. I suppose you two could just as easily be correct. Perhaps even a bit of each for certain folks.

When on earth did Nathan say that "religious people are simply too simpleminded to be logically consistent", I ask? It would be insulting himself so I'm legitimately curious.

Never mind the fact the Pope- the Pope himself- has essentially called for the Church to clean up its act and for the Curia to be overhauled, and here you are still insisting that practicing (or not practicing, as most of the people you are accusing do) Catholicism is somehow intrinsically the same thing as calling a pedophile "one of our brothers" and a "victim".

You, once again, have managed to derail a thread so that you can spew invective at the "religious dumbs" and prove to all your inherent superiority over them. Congratulations.

My position in this thread was that religious people mentally brush off the issue of sex abuse as if it were a small, trifling matter, while, at the same time, condemning in the harshest terms, a man who has merely expressed sympathy for the abuser. I maintain that this is a matter of Religious Privilege (only the clergy get the slap on the wrist, or as you put it a "call to clean up their act").  It was indeed Nathan who insisted that the issue was that.

"The clergy needs to be purged. The fact that the largest Christian denomination, for one, has yet to properly embark upon this mission is a disgrace. Many people happen not to have switches in their heads regulating their beliefs that they can simply turn on and off in response to that fact."

If you have an issue with that statement, you must go its author, who is not me.

I can't actually tell what position you're claiming I hold, but I'm pretty sure that whatever it is I don't.

This thread keeps getting worse. That's quite an achievement considering the lows it started from.

Sasuga things related to opebo.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My understanding is that there have been numerous child abuse scandals in secular institutions as well. In any event this is a very strange line of defence to adopt wrt the former poster in question given his very well known views on certain issues ('merely expressed sympathy for the abuser'; what the hell? Why would you ever write that?), but whatever. You would be better off focusing on other issues, such as the incredibly messy way in which his 'case' was handled (as in, over several years) or, possibly, on what the enforced disappearance of all those colourful extremists we used to have has meant to the forum, etc.

[Simfan34]

So you're in the camp with Nathan that religious people are simply too simpleminded to be logically consistent? I was merely giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are not, but they merely view child abuse as a Religious Privilege. I suppose you two could just as easily be correct. Perhaps even a bit of each for certain folks.

When on earth did Nathan say that "religious people are simply too simpleminded to be logically consistent", I ask? It would be insulting himself so I'm legitimately curious.

Never mind the fact the Pope- the Pope himself- has essentially called for the Church to clean up its act and for the Curia to be overhauled, and here you are still insisting that practicing (or not practicing, as most of the people you are accusing do) Catholicism is somehow intrinsically the same thing as calling a pedophile "one of our brothers" and a "victim".

You, once again, have managed to derail a thread so that you can spew invective at the "religious dumbs" and prove to all your inherent superiority over them. Congratulations.

My position in this thread was that religious people mentally brush off the issue of sex abuse as if it were a small, trifling matter, while, at the same time, condemning in the harshest terms, a man who has merely expressed sympathy for the abuser. I maintain that this is a matter of Religious Privilege (only the clergy get the slap on the wrist, or as you put it a "call to clean up their act").  It was indeed Nathan who insisted that the issue was that.

"The clergy needs to be purged. The fact that the largest Christian denomination, for one, has yet to properly embark upon this mission is a disgrace. Many people happen not to have switches in their heads regulating their beliefs that they can simply turn on and off in response to that fact."

If you have an issue with that statement, you must go its author, who is not me.

I... don't have an issue with that statement. I do object to the statement that opebo's critics, who are for some reason apparently all Catholic, are the ones who "brush off the issue of sex abuse".

Then again, not only was opebo  showing "sympathy for the abuser" but lamenting the fact the abuser was punished at all. As Gully pointed out this was guy who made no secret his enthusiasm for NAMBLA, an organisation that I still cannot tell is real or is meant to be very darkly humourous.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Even before it started we all knew this thread was going to be among the worst of 2015.

[memphis]

My understanding is that there have been numerous child abuse scandals in secular institutions as well.

I'm sure this is true. When you have a large organizations, with authority figures and figures, these things do happen unfortunately. However, the Catholic Church is in a unique position because there were so many cases all over the world. It was, indeed, a part of their culture. Getting to molest children became a de facto fringe benefit to being a priest. And, of course, the reaction of superiors was to repeatedly cover up the uniquitous incidents and to  move offenders around so that they may repeat their crimes in a new place. I don't condone sex abuse, but what the Catholic Church did, and for all we know may continue to do in places, far far worse than anything Opebo did. To merely shrug shoulders and call for the Church to do better in the future while condemning opebo in the strongest possible terms is an exercise in cognitive dissonance that I cannot even begin to understand.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Another thing I miss about opebo is the What have you eaten for dinner thread, which immediately self-destructed after our friend's untimely assassination. I loved reading about the food in Thailand. Here's a typical post of his in that thread.

I had a nice stir fry of pork liver and ginger, with a bit of onion and red hot chili peppers, served on a plate of rice..  also shared a large 'tom yum' - spicy - slightly sour - creamy soup with small pieces of squid, shrimp, and chicken, as well as mushrooms (and various herbs and flavor-imparting roots which are not really meant to be eaten).  My Thai professor friend had a fried rice with pork and broccoli, and I treated - total cost for the two of us with Coke to drink, 135 baht, about $4.50.

Would you mind answering the question I posed earlier?

I prefer not to name names because this thread is about opebo, and not about his individual and collective detractors, but I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised to see one member of the type I described more or less admit the contradiction and concede that a Great Purge is in order. You'd have to be a complete fool not to be able to connect the dots between those who worship and those who attack opebo's memory. I'm hesistent to put words in another person's mouth, but perhaps their objection is that they feel that child abuse ought to be the exclusive domain of clergymen, as some sort of official sacrament or veneration.

Do you read the nonsense you write or do you just spew it?

So you're in the camp with Nathan that religious people are simply too simpleminded to be logically consistent? I was merely giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are not, but they merely view child abuse as a Religious Privilege. I suppose you two could just as easily be correct. Perhaps even a bit of each for certain folks.

Most of the Anti-Opebo drive was not religious in nature. I don't know where you get the idea that it was, except that it dovetails nicely with your political views.

[Cory]

Most of the Anti-Opebo drive was not religious in nature. I don't know where you get the idea that it was, except that it dovetails nicely with your political views.

The sex-negative feminist prudes on here are just as bad, if not worse.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Most of the Anti-Opebo drive was not religious in nature. I don't know where you get the idea that it was, except that it dovetails nicely with your political views.

The sex-negative feminist prudes on here are just as bad, if not worse.

And these people are?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Most of the Anti-Opebo drive was not religious in nature. I don't know where you get the idea that it was, except that it dovetails nicely with your political views.

The sex-negative feminist prudes on here are just as bad, if not worse.

Thank you.

[Cory]

The sex-negative feminist prudes on here are just as bad, if not worse.

Thank you.

You were exactly who I had in mind!

[Antonio the Sixth]

The sex-negative feminist prudes on here are just as bad, if not worse.

Thank you.

You were exactly who I had in mind!

I would never have guessed.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The sex-negative feminist prudes on here are just as bad, if not worse.

Thank you.

You were exactly who I had in mind!

And was Madeleine the spirit of the anti-opebo crowd? Or are you just generalizing a heterogeneous group with stereotypes as to defend the undefensible?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The sex-negative feminist prudes on here are just as bad, if not worse.

Thank you.

You were exactly who I had in mind!

And was Madeleine the spirit of the anti-opebo crowd? Or are you just generalizing a heterogeneous group with stereotypes as to defend the undefensible?

I wouldn't say so.  She had an opoeb quote in her sig for a long time, so it seems she at least could appreciate his humor.

[memphis]

To be fair, Madeleine is far from the only sex-negative feminist prude on the Atlas. He is merely the intellectual ringleader. There are quite a few other prominent members of the Brood. But anyhow, I didn't mean to draw attention away from our honoree. Here's a good nugget of wisdom that is quite apt for this thread and a good life lesson as well

As I get older, I find friendship (dubious though it can be) is usually based more on style of humor than opinion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To be fair, Madeleine is far from the only sex-negative feminist prude on the Atlas. He is merely the intellectual ringleader.

Using my preferred name but not my preferred pronoun is an interesting choice. I take it this is the go-to option for the classy and discerning bigot these days?

[politicus]

To be fair, Madeleine is far from the only sex-negative feminist prude on the Atlas. He is merely the intellectual ringleader.

Using my preferred name but not my preferred pronoun is an interesting choice. I take it this is the go-to option for the classy and discerning bigot these days?

Using Nathan + she would be less obviously dismissive so it's a logical choice.

[memphis]

To be fair, Madeleine is far from the only sex-negative feminist prude on the Atlas. He is merely the intellectual ringleader.

Using my preferred name but not my preferred pronoun is an interesting choice. I take it this is the go-to option for the classy and discerning bigot these days?

Must everything be about you? If you would like a Celebrate Madeline week thread, start one. As it happens, name changes are a real thing, and I respect that. If you want me to go back to calling you Nathan, I will.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To be fair, Madeleine is far from the only sex-negative feminist prude on the Atlas. He is merely the intellectual ringleader.

Using my preferred name but not my preferred pronoun is an interesting choice. I take it this is the go-to option for the classy and discerning bigot these days?

Must everything be about you? If you would like a Celebrate Madeline week thread, start one. As it happens, name changes are a real thing, and I respect that. If you want me to go back to calling you Nathan, I will.

I have no idea how to respond to this. Missing the point of what I said so spectacularly has got to be deliberate. In any case, Cory made this about me first so take your trolling up with him.

[King]

awww inks

atv is public domain now

jackpot

[politicus]

awww inks

atv is public domain now

jackpot

Congrats. It is one of the strongest brands on the forum, but it will be hard to live up to the previous owners standard.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

To be fair, Madeleine is far from the only sex-negative feminist prude on the Atlas. He is merely the intellectual ringleader.

Using my preferred name but not my preferred pronoun is an interesting choice. I take it this is the go-to option for the classy and discerning bigot these days?

Must everything be about you? If you would like a Celebrate Madeline week thread, start one. As it happens, name changes are a real thing, and I respect that. If you want me to go back to calling you Nathan, I will.

Are you some sort of elaborate satire?

[King]

While the name is nice, I think the D-MA avatar is the real power. I already feel the urge impulse to post more gender neutral inoffensive language.

edit

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

While the name is nice, I think the D-MA avatar is the real power. I already feel the urge to post more gender neutral.

Indeed - I think it's a testimony to Madeleine's rule over the forum that she has utterly eclipsed britain33 as the local D-MA. At least the DeleGAtion has two powerhouses.

[memphis]

To be fair, Madeleine is far from the only sex-negative feminist prude on the Atlas. He is merely the intellectual ringleader.

Using my preferred name but not my preferred pronoun is an interesting choice. I take it this is the go-to option for the classy and discerning bigot these days?

Must everything be about you? If you would like a Celebrate Madeline week thread, start one. As it happens, name changes are a real thing, and I respect that. If you want me to go back to calling you Nathan, I will.

I have no idea how to respond to this. Missing the point of what I said so spectacularly has got to be deliberate. In any case, Cory made this about me first so take your trolling up with him.

You didn't say anything other than making your typical ad hominem attack against me. OMGZ U R a meen Bigut!1111 But again, this thread isn't about you and your attention whoring. We've been down that road far too many time. This is my last reply to you and your ilk in this thread.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To be fair, Madeleine is far from the only sex-negative feminist prude on the Atlas. He is merely the intellectual ringleader.

Using my preferred name but not my preferred pronoun is an interesting choice. I take it this is the go-to option for the classy and discerning bigot these days?

Must everything be about you? If you would like a Celebrate Madeline week thread, start one. As it happens, name changes are a real thing, and I respect that. If you want me to go back to calling you Nathan, I will.

I have no idea how to respond to this. Missing the point of what I said so spectacularly has got to be deliberate. In any case, Cory made this about me first so take your trolling up with him.

You didn't say anything other than making your typical ad hominem attack against me. OMGZ U R a meen Bigut!1111 But again, this thread isn't about you and your attention whoring. We've been down that road far too many time. This is my last reply to you and your ilk in this thread.

Entirely aside from your creepy insistence on the integrity of an internet stranger's gametes, there's such a thing as common courtesy, and you had to go too far out of your way to compose that passage the way you did for me to give you the benefit of the doubt. (Also, I have an 'ilk' now? Cool! Do we get matching jackets?)