4 ms·
The views of Catholics in general are irrelevant. The church doctrine either says something or it doesn't. He's arguing that the doctrine says that and always h
by imgabe 4y ago
The views of Catholics in general are irrelevant. The church doctrine either says something or it doesn't. He's arguing that the doctrine says that and always has.
I think taking someone's words out of context and twisting it into "this guy is pro-slavery" so you can gloat about them being robbed is just a shitty thing to do.
- maxbond 4y agoIt doesn't "just say what it does or doesn't" is what I'm trying to tell you, there's a lot of controversy about this within the Catholic community, and his views are specifically counter to current doctrine (which he views as illegitimate). (See the edit I made when you were typing this.) Gloating about them being robbed is shitty though.
- imgabe 4y agoThat's not the point. There's still a difference between arguing in the abstract "my interpretation of the doctrine says this is permitted" and "I support and advocate doing this". Even the 13th Amendment permits slavery for prisoners. It reads much more like a pedantic nerd who wants to argue the technicalities of the rules rather than someone who's just itchin' to own some slaves.
- maxbond 4y agoI guess? It's not a distinction with a very compelling difference. (The 13th amendment is wrong, morally speaking, to do so.) > It reads much more like a pedantic nerd who wants to argue the technicalities of the rules rather than someone who's just itchin' to own some slaves. I think if you understood the context better you may feel differently.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]