What the fuck ever. Between your ridiculous claim that you did not mean what you clearly said, and the lamest fucking cop out I’ve ever seen, it’s clear that we’re not ever going to get through to each other. I don’t even think we’re speaking the same language.
Wow, you were paying attention. That’s exactly what I’m saying. And if you think differently, you’re wrong. I can certainly see how someone would disagree, but that person would be uninformed. Forgive me for trying to fight a little ignorance. Notice that I am the only one who brought any evidence at all to this trainwreck. It might not be the best of evidence, but it beats the shit out of the evidence that you’ve presented, namely nothing but your own personal feelings.
I love the way you play so fast and loose with my words, but holy shit, if I try to paraphrase someone, I’m a thick piece of shite. I never said any of those things, but here you are, presenting them like I did. Fucking hypocrite.
How can one meaningfully interact with a therapist if one might be busted for it? Isn’t trust crucial?
That reminds me, I’d like to take a quick break from the tussling over how to define gay to nominate newcrasher as Most Reformed Pit Poster of the Year, or at least of the Thread.
From earnest pious rant squelcher to flippant, cussing, name-calling pottymouth—well done, 'crash! Now you get it! 
As a token of my admiration and esteem, please hereby accept my I.O.U. for one post of charitable, humble sympathy and apology, redeemable in any forum except the Pit, and usable on behalf either of yourself or of any other poster you choose to designate.
(Validated by the National Fenestration Rating Council. Void where prohibited. Do not put I.O.U. up nose.)
I’ve explained my position repeatedly in this thread, and you’ve done nothing but resort to the same tired micharacterizations over and over. You tell me why I should keep banging my head against the insurmountable edifice of your ignorance. Seriously, what’s in it for me, especially given the fact that nobody else in this thread has had any trouble understanding what I’m saying except you?
Your evidence is shit. You’ve got the testimony of convicted sex offenders, filtered through your psychological expertise as a fucking parole officer. You don’t know anything more about the subject than anyone else in this thread, which makes your smug assertations of your superiority particularly galling. Despite this, several posters besides myself have actually tried to engage you on the “evidence” you provided, and every time, you ignored them on every single point, prefering instead to engage in petty nitpickery over word choice. Fighting ignorance? That’s a laugh. If anything, you’ve spread ignorance, because every time I read one of your dumb fucking posts, a little bit of my brain dies.
I don’t think it’s come up in this thread yet, but two weeks ago I was listening to the podcast The Non-Prophets, where they were discussing the movie Jesus Camp. In that, a 12-year-old kid was a preacher, and he had a chance to talk to a man who is very prominent in the megachurch movement, who even meets regularly with President Bush. The adult preacher told him that his cuteness woud last him until he was 30, and by that time he will have developed good content. The Non-Prophets took this to mean that he realizes that what he’s selling is bullshit - it’s not from God, it’s crap you make up.
So I was listening to this week’s show, and just now realized that the man in the Jesus Camp movie is the same Ted Haggard who was in the news last week. Delicious!
Re-calibrate your irony meter, Shirley. It was a *sarcastic *representation, not intended as argument.
You were taken to task for claiming I had said something that was not remotely close to what I said, and for using “it seemed obvious to me” as your cite. Your thickheadedness is your absolute refusal to accept that there is more than "the only possible piece of evidence … " I never said you were thick because of paraphrasing, and challenge you right here and now to prove otherwise. Oops. Not gonna happen, is it?
As has been noted ad nauseum, your explanation is not the parsimonious one, so it requires a bit more shoring up than you have done so far. For one thing, despite repeated requests, you have yet to explain why a man who is satisfied with a jar full of flies as a sexual partner would go to such extreme lengths just to get laid.
Please show me one scrap of evidence you have presented. (Hint. Anecdotes don’t count.)
One would think. **Shirley **has claimed that his wife discusses her patients with him. You can ask him for his explanation, and decide for yourself if it is satisfactory.
This is an excellent question, and unfortunately often presents us with a tough dilemma. First of all, though, under my state’s laws a therapist has a legal obligation to notify authorities when they think a child may be in danger. So in some cases it’s a no-brainer, they have to tell. When information falls into more of a gray area the therapist has to use his/her judgment, but all the therapists that I work with understand that the safety of the public is the most important consideration. A therapist who puts the public in danger to protect their client will soon find themselves with a dearth of clients.
Dobson has already bailed, citing time constraints. Or maybe he balked at the laying on of hands.
Here is a fascinating take on the story. Link.
A long article, but worth reading.
All I can say is I hope I never catch the gay. That motherfucker must be a flaming bitch to get rid of.
Well well well–it turns out that the evangelical community knew Haggard was gay but sat on that info:
In my opinion, no. The first statement is in relation to a specific example, while the second is a generalization. It’s perectly valid to allow a specific instance of a statement’s truth, while simultaneously declining to endorse the notion that the generalization of a similar statement is true.
So, while in any given debate, an argument from the specific to the general might lead to a conclusion that is consistent with observed reality, one cannot validly state that the general is logically necessary as a derivative of acceptance of the specific.
What’s more, your examples are even a bit off from the statements that have been made in this thread. The posters who are saying that Haggard’s sexual behavior is good evidence for the assertion that he is gay, are explicitly noting that he [allegedly] visited a male prostitute repeatedly. Your example of the specific could be applied to both the habitual consumer of such services, and the curious experimenter with a couple of extra dollars in his pocket and some time to kill.
Well damn. That’s a blockbuster.
Whaddya bet that within three years this guy will have either committed suicide or become a gay-rights activist? I just don’t see his state of denial continuing to hold up under that kind of pressure and publicity; something’s gotta give.
www.sojo.org is a website I really identify with. It is a christian site focused on social justice issues. There are hopeful signs that more people of influence in the faith communities are getting beyond the salicious details of the Haggard story and are using this scandal as a chance for self reflections.
Tony Campolo writes:
It is yet another hopeful sign that there are some followers of Jesus out there who are willing to examine the logs in our own eyes…
Hallelujah, He’s CURED!
Haggard now “completely heterosexual”
That’s one of the most Onionlike headlines I’ve seen in a while (that didn’t actually come from The Onion).
What sort of tests do you suppose they run to confirm that no traces of his former gayness remain?
Well, I heard he finally threw out all his Liberace and Johnny Mathis records.
“As you can see, gentlemen, the testicles have been resting on his lips for a solid five minutes, and he has not attempted to open his mouth once. Not even a little bit. …How are you doing in there, Ted?”
“Mmm.”
“Would you like to see if you can make it the full fifteen?”
“Mmm hmmm.”
How long before this fraud (Haggard) isn’t back on TV, sucking money out of the SS accounts of old widows again? The people who follow these fundy whackjobs seem to have a few screws loose…I remember when the other guy got caught with a hooker (was it Swaggart)? Anyway, within a few months, he was back swindling the clueless… :smack: