6 ms·

That's thinking from an outsiders perspective. These people are pillars of their community. To have them teaching other people and leading is just disgusting f

That's thinking from an outsiders perspective. These people are pillars of their community. To have them teaching other people and leading is just disgusting from their perspective. Look, I support gay rights, I'm the furthest thing from catholic. But I understand how many communities find homosexuality unnatural and wrong. You should respect that and NOT join that community. Just like how Catholics shouldn't enforce their ideas on the rest of the world, you shouldn't enforce yours either.

foldr 4y ago
> "A group of conservative Colorado Catholics has spent millions of dollars to buy mobile app tracking data that identified priests who used gay dating and hookup apps and then shared it with bishops around the country." > Look, I support gay rights Not sure how you can support gay rights and also be ok with organisations spying on gay people (specifically because they're gay). One can debate whether or not this practice should be illegal, but it's clearly wrong, even by the tenets of Catholicism itself. Why are they not also spying on straight priests using Tinder?
- fwlr 4y ago
  I mean, it’s not just any organization, it’s the anti-gay organization. At least to me, this fits more into the category of “The Vegan Society spying on its employees through restaurant checking and UberEats orders”, which I wouldn’t describe as “spying on vegans (specifically because they’re vegan)”.
  - foldr 4y ago
    Well no, that would be spying on non-vegans specifically because they’re non-vegan (in the equivalent scenario where they were tracking usage of an app that only offered non-vegan options). Also, wouldn't that be an extremely weird and creepy thing for The Vegan Society to do? I’m surprised you’d offer this analogy as a defense of the behavior in question.
    - fwlr 4y ago
      Quick correction: I’m not defending this behavior (if it happened to me I would quit the company on the spot). “That would be spying on non-vegans…” Right, some of the signs are flipped, but the concept is still the same - an organization promoting a particular ethical standard is surveilling its members adherence to that standard. “Weird and creepy…” Yes, certainly! But not against vegan rights, not discriminating against vegans, not “targeting vegans (specifically because they are vegan)”. I was responding to the claim that supporting gay rights is incompatible with tolerating this practice.
- thinkcontext 4y ago
  What tenets of Catholicism does this violate?
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    If I was this deep in someone else's business I'd absolutely need to go to confession over it.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  Spying on gay people or people in general is a separate issue to the parent comment. My reply is more referring to the intent of the parent comment. As in how is spending "millions" justifiable to root out gay people in a catholic organization.
  - foldr 4y ago
    I’m not sure I see the distinction. Being gay isn’t a sin according to Catholicism, only having gay sex. So given that they are not acquiring sex tapes from this data, it’s difficult to see how this is anything other than harassing some gay people for being gay. (If they discover that a priest is straight, do they then jump to the conclusion that he’s having straight sex?) Perhaps you can think of a justification for all this, but I haven’t seen a coherent one given so far in this thread.
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      > Being gay isn’t a sin according to Catholicism, only having gay sex. Being a pedophile isn't against the law, only engaging on pedophiliac desires is illegal. Therefore I should be ok with pedophiles being leaders of our community and teachers. Right? Wrong. Examining the technicalities of the rules is just pedantry. There is an obvious intent and overall meaning behind the rules. >Perhaps you can think of a justification for all this, but I haven’t seen a coherent one given so far in this thread. Thanks for being so polite. This is obviously against the rules here, you're saying it to trigger me.
      - foldr 4y ago
        Pedophilia has victims and pedophiles are a potential danger to children. There is no victim when two adult gay men have consensual sex – unless one of them is harassed out of his job by people spying on him. The comparison with pedophilia is so obviously inappropriate (and liable to unnecessarily inflame emotions in the context of this thread) that it makes me question whether you're engaging with this topic in good faith. If you do have a point to make, could I ask you to please find a way to make it without reference to pedophilia, which has nothing to do with gay priests using hookup apps to talk to other adult gay men.
krapp 4y ago
>But I understand how many communities find homosexuality unnatural and wrong. You should respect that and NOT join that community. Just like how Catholics shouldn't enforce their ideas on the rest of the world, you shouldn't enforce yours either. Catholics do enforce their ideas on the rest of the world, as many Christians in positions of power do. Especially in the US. Especially recently, with the surge of extremist anti-LGBT and anti abortion laws, all predicated philosophically on Christian doctrine. People who find homosexuality unnatural and wrong should not be respected, or simply let be, any more than virulent racists or anti-Semites. Tolerance for the intolerant only leads in the extermination of the tolerant.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  >"Tolerance for the intolerant only leads in the extermination of the tolerant." This is awfully hyperbolic, I cannot take it seriously because it comes across as an indictment of tolerance and an endorsement of intolerance as a moral imperative. Granted, I'm sure the implication is that it would be a 'righteous' kind of intolerance, but it is rooted in absolutism nonetheless.
  - krapp 4y ago
    > I cannot take it seriously because it comes across as an indictment of tolerance and an endorsement of intolerance as a moral imperative. It's a very simple concept, described by Karl Popper in a single straightforward paragraph, commonly referred to as the Paradox of Tolerance. It's one of those lessons that came out of the aftermath of the Holocaust, which for some reason people go through great pains to refuse to comprehend. That's fine - should you ever find yourself as part of a demographic that some other group wants eradicated, feel free to defend to the death their right to organize and recruit and argue for that, and tolerate their hatred as much as you like. In fact, just out of principle, make sure they have access to as many platforms as they want and can gather as much political power as possible. Maybe even try to engage them in debate, despite the unequal power dynamic between truth and lies (particularly in the modern ecosystem of engagement-driven social media and manufactured reality) - sunlight is the best disinfectant after all. I'm sure it'll all work out OK.

foldr 4y ago

> "A group of conservative Colorado Catholics has spent millions of dollars to buy mobile app tracking data that identified priests who used gay dating and hookup apps and then shared it with bishops around the country." > Look, I support gay rights Not sure how you can support gay rights and also be ok with organisations spying on gay people (specifically because they're gay). One can debate whether or not this practice should be illegal, but it's clearly wrong, even by the tenets of Catholicism itself. Why are they not also spying on straight priests using Tinder?

fwlr 4y ago
I mean, it’s not just any organization, it’s the anti-gay organization. At least to me, this fits more into the category of “The Vegan Society spying on its employees through restaurant checking and UberEats orders”, which I wouldn’t describe as “spying on vegans (specifically because they’re vegan)”.
- foldr 4y ago
  Well no, that would be spying on non-vegans specifically because they’re non-vegan (in the equivalent scenario where they were tracking usage of an app that only offered non-vegan options). Also, wouldn't that be an extremely weird and creepy thing for The Vegan Society to do? I’m surprised you’d offer this analogy as a defense of the behavior in question.
  - fwlr 4y ago
    Quick correction: I’m not defending this behavior (if it happened to me I would quit the company on the spot). “That would be spying on non-vegans…” Right, some of the signs are flipped, but the concept is still the same - an organization promoting a particular ethical standard is surveilling its members adherence to that standard. “Weird and creepy…” Yes, certainly! But not against vegan rights, not discriminating against vegans, not “targeting vegans (specifically because they are vegan)”. I was responding to the claim that supporting gay rights is incompatible with tolerating this practice.
thinkcontext 4y ago
What tenets of Catholicism does this violate?
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  If I was this deep in someone else's business I'd absolutely need to go to confession over it.
kilgnad 4y ago
Spying on gay people or people in general is a separate issue to the parent comment. My reply is more referring to the intent of the parent comment. As in how is spending "millions" justifiable to root out gay people in a catholic organization.
- foldr 4y ago
  I’m not sure I see the distinction. Being gay isn’t a sin according to Catholicism, only having gay sex. So given that they are not acquiring sex tapes from this data, it’s difficult to see how this is anything other than harassing some gay people for being gay. (If they discover that a priest is straight, do they then jump to the conclusion that he’s having straight sex?) Perhaps you can think of a justification for all this, but I haven’t seen a coherent one given so far in this thread.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    > Being gay isn’t a sin according to Catholicism, only having gay sex. Being a pedophile isn't against the law, only engaging on pedophiliac desires is illegal. Therefore I should be ok with pedophiles being leaders of our community and teachers. Right? Wrong. Examining the technicalities of the rules is just pedantry. There is an obvious intent and overall meaning behind the rules. >Perhaps you can think of a justification for all this, but I haven’t seen a coherent one given so far in this thread. Thanks for being so polite. This is obviously against the rules here, you're saying it to trigger me.
    - foldr 4y ago
      Pedophilia has victims and pedophiles are a potential danger to children. There is no victim when two adult gay men have consensual sex – unless one of them is harassed out of his job by people spying on him. The comparison with pedophilia is so obviously inappropriate (and liable to unnecessarily inflame emotions in the context of this thread) that it makes me question whether you're engaging with this topic in good faith. If you do have a point to make, could I ask you to please find a way to make it without reference to pedophilia, which has nothing to do with gay priests using hookup apps to talk to other adult gay men.

krapp 4y ago

>But I understand how many communities find homosexuality unnatural and wrong. You should respect that and NOT join that community. Just like how Catholics shouldn't enforce their ideas on the rest of the world, you shouldn't enforce yours either. Catholics do enforce their ideas on the rest of the world, as many Christians in positions of power do. Especially in the US. Especially recently, with the surge of extremist anti-LGBT and anti abortion laws, all predicated philosophically on Christian doctrine. People who find homosexuality unnatural and wrong should not be respected, or simply let be, any more than virulent racists or anti-Semites. Tolerance for the intolerant only leads in the extermination of the tolerant.

BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"Tolerance for the intolerant only leads in the extermination of the tolerant." This is awfully hyperbolic, I cannot take it seriously because it comes across as an indictment of tolerance and an endorsement of intolerance as a moral imperative. Granted, I'm sure the implication is that it would be a 'righteous' kind of intolerance, but it is rooted in absolutism nonetheless.
- krapp 4y ago
  > I cannot take it seriously because it comes across as an indictment of tolerance and an endorsement of intolerance as a moral imperative. It's a very simple concept, described by Karl Popper in a single straightforward paragraph, commonly referred to as the Paradox of Tolerance. It's one of those lessons that came out of the aftermath of the Holocaust, which for some reason people go through great pains to refuse to comprehend. That's fine - should you ever find yourself as part of a demographic that some other group wants eradicated, feel free to defend to the death their right to organize and recruit and argue for that, and tolerate their hatred as much as you like. In fact, just out of principle, make sure they have access to as many platforms as they want and can gather as much political power as possible. Maybe even try to engage them in debate, despite the unequal power dynamic between truth and lies (particularly in the modern ecosystem of engagement-driven social media and manufactured reality) - sunlight is the best disinfectant after all. I'm sure it'll all work out OK.