Bp W column, 7.4.09
What would y'all think if I said that the M-4 is actually mine, not Scipio's.  It's true.  I have the receipt to prove it.  :P

Does that make me unnatural, masculine, and weird?  ::)
Or would it only be scandalous if I were a professional competitive shooter?  ???

Or if I wore pants while shooting?  ::)

Or does the fact that I enjoy going to the range mean that I'm trying to be one of the guys or seduce them?  ::)

Or am I ok b/c I don't wear skimpy outfits while I shoot (which would be a safety issue--I wore flip flops to the range once and learned my lesson pretty quickly haha).  :laughing:

And what would y'all think if I said that Scipio stays home & babysits while my girlfriends and I go to the range?  :o  :laughing:
(07-04-2009, 11:35 PM)didishroom Wrote: This is stupid. You're under the assumption that women playing sports is intrinsically immoral like cross dressing....and you defend such a belief by asking us, hypothetically, if we would think God would command such a thing in a mystical vision. The flaws in your logic is astonishing.

Do you really want  know what's stupid?   What's stupid is your cockamamey trashing of everything Bishop Williamson has to say.   But the really stupid thing is how you post on a catholic websitbe but  you don't have the moral fiber to actually honestly deal with what the bishop is talking about.  In your first post, you create a strawman of stating that the bishop is berating women for leaving the kitchen.  

He did no such thing.  In other words, you have to lie about the Bishop's position in order to commence your character assasination.  That's no different than any of the progressives and the conservatives in the Church, they trash and misrepresent all of the Pre-Vatican II Church, they trash the Pope when he's correct, the wilder liberals and the secular media trash the liberal Popes for being too conservative and further out the Protestants and the Jews and the Orthodox have to lie about the Church, her history, and her privileges.  It's the same modus operandi.   You can't deal with the actual argument, so it's time to create a false argument.  

Now, since you can't honestly deal with my valid points, you have to try and create a strawman in which you fail to delineate between "playing sports" and the abuse of one's nature for the sake of "playing sports."
You engage in this dirty tactic of failing to make distinctions when it suits you.  Just as there is a difference between legitimate sports and recreation there is a difference between eating and gluttony, marital relations and fornication, drinking and drunkenness. There is also a difference between "going to College" and actually 'getting a worthwhile education."   It's no different than those who see no distinction between the Novus Ordo and the TLM.  

You fail to see an abuse of sports and recreation that the bishop does see and anyone who can free their minds from the drumbeat of the perverse counterculture can see.

Actually I'm convinced you don't fail to see it.  You must like the gender-blending and all the stream of anti-family ideas described as "liberty" and "freedom."   Your disparaging and feminist inspired cliches' about "the kitchen" alone prove you've got a mixed up set of priorities and that you've been totally brainwashed into denying that there is an assault that is both subtle and overt on the nature of male and female as God created the human race.  

You parade yourself as some kind of fair-minded liberal on gender issues when you assault the very nature of femininity by endorsing the assault against  women that demeans the very nature that God gave them.  Male and female are fully complementary and fully dignified in the supernatural and the natural order, but they are not built for the same things and those things they do share are not necessarily to be done with the same intention nor intensity.  That's why male and female make couples and not pairs.

You blame and resent the good bishop for seeing what you willfully remain blind to.  

I like Bishop Williamson, but I think he holds some goofy opinions.
(07-05-2009, 08:32 AM)didishroom Wrote: Why is it unnatural? Being paid makes it wrong? Why is being plaid masculine?

Playing a game with your family is fine, but to make a living out of it is unnatural. Sports goes against the nature of women. It is by its nature a male thing. It's not getting paid, but the lifestyle that is a huge problem. The training, strength, conditioning, and competitiveness of professional sports is something that by nature is masculine and in no way part of womanhood. Women who do this are shaping a masculine identity that goes against the nature of their sex.

The erroneous philosophies of feminism, relativism, gender equality have led to this atmosphere of female sports. In the history of the world in the last centuries, there has been no such thing as female professional sports.
It is intresting to note that all the female professional sports leagues in any sport have dismal ratings and attendance in relation to male professional sports. The crowds are always small and female professional sports cannot compete on TV.

The simple fact is that they are boring, and there is something in the human condition that does not enjoy watching women play sports. Man has no intrest in it. Only when men play is there excitement among the population because it is seen as natural.

The NBA is a huge sport in this country that enjoys fans and success. The WNBA does not. I was surprised it still existed. No one including myself, pays attention to it. There was a novelty to it in its first season about a dozen years ago, but soon basketball fans just tuned it out.
(07-05-2009, 01:02 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: It is intresting to note that all the female professional sports leagues in any sport have dismal ratings and attendance in relation to male professional sports. The crowds are always small and female professional sports cannot compete on TV.

This is true also for children and the handicapped.  Just sayin'.

two can play at that game
(07-05-2009, 08:32 AM)didishroom Wrote: Why is it unnatural? Being paid makes it wrong? Why is being plaid masculine?

What H.E. actually said was "we are de-naturing our womenfolk by admiring and encouraging them to gladiate" and then "Can then the countrymen of Wimbledon... be surprised if their native birth-rates are collapsing? Have they any right to complain if their countries look like being taken over by immigrants in a not too distant future?"

What is there to deny or debate here among Catholics? Promoting the masculine de-naturing of European women is part of the Euro-genocide that is resulting in a gradual re-peopling of those countries by Muslims.

The gender-bender culture is funneled to the gullible public by the media elite. Churchmen responsible for spiritual guardianship are intimidated into silence. Bishop Williamson is resented for speaking out about what would have been immediately obvious to anyone 100 years ago and still is obvious to Muslims (and the elite agenda-setters).
(07-05-2009, 01:21 PM)libby Wrote:

two can play at that game

I disagree that strength, training, and competitiveness are not, by nature, part of women's character. Those women with large families in particular develop very strong muscles and a great deal of physical endurance. Ask around, most trad mothers do strength training or some form of strenous exercise to keep themselves in shape for their children. One mother of nine I know now has the exact muscles of a weight-lifter. Or you might consider pioneer women: no weak, delicate flowers, they!
And for competitiveness, what would be the explanation for cooking contests? Baking contests? Sewing contests? If women are not by nature competitive, why do these things exist? Women are extremely competitive, especially with other women. Observe what happens the next time you see a group of women talking amongst themselves. It can be subtle, but you'll see it.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)