Would you have voted for the Oregon Compulsory Education Act?

[Mechaman]

No, given that it was just a veiled effort to destroy Catholics schools.

This pretty much.

lol at BRTD wondering why the KKK was on what he would see to be the "right side".  Then again, I'm not entirely sure BRTD would've been that outraged at the 1920's KKK.  Actually, I see him being a moderate hero on the 1920's KKK.

Obviously, I don't agree with the whole anti-private school hoopla.  I mean really, somebody has to be quite a staunch statist to think about forcing every kid to attend a public school.

[Mechaman]

No, given that it was just a veiled effort to destroy Catholics schools.

And...that's a bad thing how?

Probably not, on the principle that it was a KKK-backed piece of anti-Catholic legislation.

Well considering how you are pretty anti-Catholic (see comments about sex abuse scandals and contraception), I don't see how that'd be a problem, unless you're basically just saying anything the KKK supports should be opposed.

No, given that it was just a veiled effort to destroy Catholics schools.

This pretty much.

lol at BRTD wondering why the KKK was on what he would see to be the "right side".  Then again, I'm not entirely sure BRTD would've been that outraged at the 1920's KKK.  Actually, I see him being a moderate hero on the 1920's KKK.

Not at all, I probably would like Irish immigrants in the 20s actually since they were the biggest opponents of Prohibition and responsible for providing me with a lot of my alcohol, and the KKK were in favor of it. I would've voted for Al Smith in 1928 because of that.

I wasn't calling you anti-Irish, I was calling you anti-Catholic.

Get the terms right.

Good to know at least you hate the 1920's KKK for some rational reason at least.

[Mechaman]

Now, I agree, denouncing converts and saying they should be damned isn't something to be praised.  However, what can you really say about Anglican charities that forced the Irish to give up their religion to get food?  Why didn't you complain about that BRTD but instead focused on what the Catholics did?  I mean, are they really any damn better for requiring a sacrifice of religion in order to avoid starving to death?  Arguably, this is an evil that shows how corrupt institutions, both Anglican and Catholic, were back then to demand obedience to one hierarchy over the other or suffer extreme consequences.

However, I take issue with this idea that staunchly religious protestants aren't as bad as religious Catholics when it comes to the subject of condemnation.  I happen to come from the Religious Southland, where protestant bigotry towards all sorts of people isn't anything that's rare.  It was here, in barely Catholic at all Oklahoma, where a voter supported ban on Sharia Law was passed in 2010.  Yes, it is on it's way to history by now thanks to judges loyal to the Freedom of Religion, but it still happened.

And I call 'BULLF***INGSH*T" on the idea that damnation of converts is something that is only common in Catholic Christianity.  Many Mainstream Protestants that I know would flip half a sh*t if their kid came out as a Muslim, an atheist, or *gasp* a Catholic.  SO you can keep on acting like the great evils of prejudice are only in the communities in which you are naturally predisposed to hate (yes I used the h word) or you can admit that this is a problem brought on by the greed of American culture to divide people.

EDIT: Caught the enormous omission of words.

[Mechaman]

Now, I agree, denouncing converts and saying they should be damned isn't something to be praised.  However, what can you really say about Anglican charities that forced the Irish to give up their religion to get food?  Why didn't you complain about that BRTD but instead focused on what the Catholics did?  I mean, are they really any damn better for requiring a sacrifice of religion in order to avoid starving to death?  Arguably, this is an evil that shows how corrupt institutions, both Anglican and Catholic, were back then to demand obedience to one hierarchy over the other or suffer extreme consequences.

You're right, it obviously wasn't right either. My thing though is that since I know people who quit the Catholic church WITHOUT societal benefit, I know they clearly would with it. I know I would too, I mean you all know with the way I talk I wouldn't renounce Jesus to get food, but if I was raised Catholic would I renounce the Pope to do so? Of course, because I wouldn't care too much about the Pope in the first place.

However, I take issue with this idea that staunchly religious protestants aren't as bad as religious Catholics when it comes to the subject of condemnation.  I happen to come from the Religious Southland, where protestant bigotry towards all sorts of people isn't anything that's rare.  It was here, in barely Catholic at all Oklahoma, where a voter supported ban on Sharia Law was passed in 2010.  Yes, it is on it's way to history by now thanks to judges loyal to the Freedom of Religion, but it still happened.

Well yeah this is clearly a case of different perspectives, you being in Oklahoma after all. But I will note that as stupid as the Sharia ban was, the vast majority of people think of Sharia Law as what's used in Saudi Arabia and Iran to execute homosexuals and rape victims. We all know that's not coming anytime soon to anywhere in the US regardless of the passage of stupid measures like that, but it's why they are so easy to pass, it's more ignorance than bigotry.

And if you'll note, I did state above that I'm sure the vast majority of Catholics today would be disgusted by that type of thing I'm railing against.

And I call 'BULLF***INGSH*T" on the idea that damnation of converts is something that is only common in Catholic Christianity.  Many Mainstream Protestants that I know would flip half a sh*t if their kid came out as a Muslim, an atheist, or *gasp* a Catholic.  SO you can keep on acting like the great evils of prejudice are only in the communities in which you are naturally predisposed to hate (yes I used the h word) or you can admit that this is a problem brought on by the greed of American culture to divide people.

Once again you're in Oklahoma, so your definition of "mainstream Protestant" is clearly going to differ from mine. I do know plenty who also would flip if their kid became a Catholic, but because that meant that they'd be joining something ran by a reactionary, sexist and homophobic hierarchy, not because of it being the Whore of Babylon or whatever. But from personal experience, my family was not bothered by me being baptized again in a neocharismatic church, or my youngest brother who still lives at home identifying as agnostic. But as I stated above even most Catholics here wouldn't care too much about their kid converting or getting married outside a Catholic church, which is why I'm condemning the attitudes of 1920s Catholics or 19th century Irish which clearly aren't as common today.

Which is why you would support legislation that was, in spirit, designed to be anti-religious and to soothe bigots?  Which was incidentally supported by the Ku Klux Klan.

Again, I'm surprised you wouldn't be soulmates with the 1920's KKK (outside of the alcohol issue).

But before you think I'm painting you as little more than a reactionary, but I don't think it's fair to judge an organization wholly by it's hierarchy.  Yet you seem to do this all the time when it comes to the Catholics but not when it comes to Protestants.

Inconsistency much?

[Mechaman]

I'm on homeschooling.
And do you know what I'm gonna say?
F**k you guys.

And suddenly everything makes a little more sense...

Yes this is perhaps the most convincing argument in the history of histories.
Surely no argument could ever be as evidenced filled, rational, full of argument and counterargument with strong supporting theses such as this "F**k you guys."
I mean really!  My mind is blown!
You know what?  This kid is my hero!  I should go into my Philosophy final (that I should've been studying for all this morning but put off because I'm a lazyarse who is hoping that the question that is picked is something I know a lot about or can easily bullsh*t) and just write down these infamous words "F**k you guys" (Pingvin 3:16).  Surely it will be an instant "A" and the professor will recommend me for Oxford after I graduate despite me having no future.
I mean really, all the defenses of home schooling can't be as accurate and as deep hitting as this.  This is the most persuasive argument ever in favor of home schooling.  While public schools and private school and gay schools may teach everyone to use proper syntax and to throw in a thesis and at least 900 words in every argument with thorough documentation and evidence of arguments and counterarguments, the homeschooler simply takes a whiff of air and says "F**k you guys!"
Truly a superior brand of education right there!

This sign of superiority in intelligence and in the art of argument makes Pingvin an easy future leader.  In fact, such is his superiority that I wouldn't be surprised if Congress repeals that part about only native borns being allowed to run for president.  A bipartisan agreement on that by the way, to insure that such a great one as Pingvin, with his charisma and superior brain waves, is elected President of these United States to enter us into a Golden Era.  All the nations of the Earth must fear us, for we will have Pingvin as our leader.



God be praised!

[Mechaman]

Also, I would like to take this time to apologize to BRTD for the extreme hyperbole I committed while debating him.  Yes, while I do believe that you are an ideological bigot it was unfair of me to make the comment about being surprised that you wouldn't be a soulmate with the 1920's KKK.  Yes, there was an anti-Catholic element, but there was also an anti-Jew element, an anti-black element, an anti-immigrant element, and probably even an anti-Ice Cream element.

The implications that you would be a KKK lover was uncalled for and inaccurate considering the wide scope of hatred the KKK has to the weirdly narrow and specific scope that you have.  In effect, I do admit that I have committed a grievous Category Error that Gilbert Ryle would facepalm at.

This was an exceedingly unfair characterization of a man of your character who occasionally has selfish principles that gets in the way of his predisposed prejudices towards certain groups in certain scenarios.

I apologize.