Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewIt simply means you are able to see the difference in...
Feminism and Catholicism: The Church is not Misogynistic, in fact the polar opposite
You really are coming off as a charlatan. "CON:That is Pro"s thesis but there has been little evidence yet provided to support that position." No, that was not my thesis, it was a COUNTER to your point in R1. My thesis was this (which oddly enough is usually found near the start of someone's argument): "The church celebrates women, celebrates their femininity, celebrates their ability to bring life into a world of death, and in fact holds that the FIRST and perhaps GREATEST Christians in history were in fact, women! There is a biblical and historical foundation for all of these ideas." You go on to say that since there is SOME discrimination against women, there must be some level of misogyny. No, this is a logical fallacy, I can tell you are going to have trouble on the LSAT. Further more, discrimination is not always a bad thing, as seen in the second entry of the definition I previously provided. It simply means you are able to see the difference in something. An Analogy, we celebrate the beauty of the color white, and the color black by themselves, but we do not always need to make them exactly the same or mix them together to make gray. I'm just going to generally sum up some of your points instead of being systematic, because debates are not about convincing the opponent, but getting your side out there for the audience. So you say in the beginning that I provide no evidence for my thesis. Now that we have established that you cannot even find where my thesis is, and I have provided it, I will tell you that I did provide examples and evidence for it in everything I refuted and countered in R1. While it is obvious that you can make a nice presentation, do research, and cite well...you really just cherry pick what you want. I mean that's what debating is though, in the competitive sense, but I can tell you really don't have a desire to see the other side. You cite a bishop. One bishop. Judas was a bishop, too. Here let me do a quote mining experiment: From Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder, "[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." ^http://www.lifenews.com... Well that must represent the whole view of the organization. Eugenics is great, how can anyone be opposed to it! So now let's move onto the subject of pornography, which you countered clumsily by saying, "In fact, Church policy condemns most sex and sexuality outside the precincts of connubial baby-making but pornography is not the only way to objectify a woman. When women are denied access to birth control, they are reduced to make-defined function. Men are encouraged to follow their callings while women are the machines that bear and raise the children of men." Let me correct you there...it's not MOST SEX and sexuality, it is ALL sex. Men and women are both called to celibate lives. And no, we are not confined to "baby-making", but rather challenged to practice self-denial, mutual love and respect, and not put pills in our body. You are seriously undercutting how Catholics view sex. Men are called to the same limits as women, thus totally destroying the discrimination aspect. But I did not see you mention that. You are a skilled writer, you are only letting the audience see what you want them to. Secondly, this does nothing to counter that the secular world, which you are in support of, has it's largest industries profit off of objectifying women, e.g. Pornography and advertisements. Go watch an hour of TV and tell if you DONT see something that objectifies women, sells sex, or spurs on racism. Thirdly, I cannot be a priest either. It's a supernatural calling, and I'm not going to spell out the Sacraments of Vocation for you because this is not an RCIA class. If you really have interest you can start another debate, message me personally, attend an RCIA class, or bring this up on Catholic Answers. No one is forced to do anything in the Catholic Church. The vast majority of Catholics are not clerical, and the vast majority of the lay people live lives contrary to all of the Church's teachings. This is what Jesus showed us from His ministry on Earth. He hung around tax collectors, prostitutes, poor people, sinners, etc. Any seriously practicing Catholic will tell you they fall short on some of the church's teachings, let's just say in the realm of sexuality, but they are not kicked out nor are they forced to go. Women can be CEO's of fortune 500 companies and be fully functioning members of the Catholic Church. They can have sex, or not. They can use NFP, or not. They can follow the rules or not. They aren't kicked out, nor forced to do anything by anyone. Women are also able to follow their callings within the church, and women are capable of doing things that men are not. So now onto your counter to my "medical student" analogy. You're misusing the analogy. It was simply meant to illustrate that there are CERTAIN circumstances where we treat unequal people (unequal in certain aspects) unequally, and that is not injustice. You make ANOTHER LOGICAL FALLACY (covered up by decent rhetoric) by making it into a false analogy. "Taken from the side, and you are not well learned..." Actually, I was paraphrasing my girlfriend. I don't know who that guy is you quoted. But kudos for you for knowing that. I like how you totally did not address how that verse and story can be taken to mean something other than you clumsily showed it to me. Once again, letting the audience see what you want it to and ignoring any detractors. Here is another example: "An odd conception since Mary is generally thought to supersede Christianity, unencumbered by sin or death. The Catholic Church teaches that the church was founded the moment Jesus said "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Which would make Peter the first Christian and through whom all popes assert their primacy. Paul was the figure who truly defined Christianity. However, I doubt the apostles would have approved of ranking Christians hierarchically." That is when the church was founded (or at Pentecost when they received more Holy Orders), but Christianity started with Christ's resurrection. And who were the first believers? Women. Who doubted? Men. Paul is NOT the figure who defined Christianity. And the Church totally does have a hierarchy and ranks Christians. Why do you think we have Papal Primacy, Canonization, the God Head, choirs of angels, levels in heaven, etc. So yes, you are not well versed in actual Catholic teaching. Sorry if it bad rhetoric for me to point our when you quote mine, say objectively false things, and play fast and loose with history. "As Pro states, Mary is a complicated figure, a relatively spare portrait on which misogynists and feminists each paint fraught ideologies" Never said that, but thanks for making something up. Seriously, you are just putting words in my mouth at this point. Desperate much? PRO: " [Women] are inherently better Christians and People." CON: A fairly sexist generalization. ^If it is, it certainly is not misogynistic. "CON: People are not things. Beauty is subjective, superficial, and ephemeral." Well, if you look at how we view God, everything in the physical universe is a thing. God is "Ipsum Esse" and outside of "thing"-dom for lack of a better word. He has no genus or classification. He is the uncaused caused. We are in the genus "human" if you will, but God is not. So what the Pope is saying, is that women are the most beautiful of all creation, i.e. out of everything in the world. We have different perspectives. Out of space.
