Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Matthew on May 22, 2018, 01:34:46 PM
-
Someone posted a video on CathInfo yesterday that I found to be quite inappropriate for Catholics.
I can learn about "excrement" without plunging my head into a huge pile of it, making sure lots of it gets into my mouth and nose!
There is a better way to spread the word about evils in this world that we Catholics should be fighting, which maintains discretion, modesty, and decorum -- one that is Catholic-friendly.
(The video in question) was trying to be shocking and sensational -- and it was vulgar, gross, and very worldly. In fact, I would even say it was trying to be shocking TO worldly people! Which takes some doing, I might add. So the resulting video will be quite inappropriate, and that is why I must say: any such videos are not welcome on CathInfo.
If that means you can't lazily cut & paste a video link into a CathInfo post, but instead you have to write up some text which disseminates the important information WHILST MAINTANING CATHOLIC MORALITY AND DECORUM, and meanwhile the consumers of said text have to READ instead of passively watching a video, then so be it.
Both sides have to do an ounce of work? So be it. But throwing Catholic morality and decorum to the wind CANNOT BE the answer. But I'll say this: if you REALLY care about how cows are treated, or how evil prostitution is, or whatever, you WILL take the 15 minutes to write up some text or come up with a censored version. You can't claim to be a fervent, glorious truth warrior if all you're going to do is cut & paste. Anyone can do that! That takes no effort or commitment.
Long story short: Catholics have a principle of morality that THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. It doesn't matter how evil the thing you are fighting; you can't adopt sinful means to bring about some good.
-
Seems to me I've seen a lot of very questionable videos and photos which were left in CI, even after I flagged them as inappropriate. Especially some by Croix...
I understand that video you took down was very in your face and had inappropriate language. But, if you turned off the audio and looked only at the video, it was a very accurate description of how our food is treated before we eat it. GROSS!
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, which is why some on CI, particularly Croix, use so many pictures. Why are photos and videos of animal torture for the purpose of putting food on our table worse? At least there is a reason for the latter while there is NO reason for the former.
-
Matthew - Sodomizing(with ones arm or an electronic device familiar to modern sex culture operated by humans) male and female cows in order to stimulate and artificially inseminate to perpetuate the profiteering dairy industry is immoral to what ought to be regarded as a high degree. Only a jesuit would defend artificial insemination.
denzinger 1124 - "various moral errors"(of the jesuits) - "voluptuousness, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same ultimate species, and so it is enough to say in confession that on has procured a pollution." Condemned by pope alexander VII.
In the old testament, such that were involved in such an act were put to death, along with the animal. Just because the human in this case(rampant artificial insemination of animals) does not personally procure a pollution does not mean the sin is not or should not be there. A man cannot do that with another man without escaping the guilt of sin.
Why differentiate now?
-
Matthew - Sodomizing(with ones arm or an electronic device familiar to modern sex culture operated by humans) male and female cows in order to stimulate and artificially inseminate to perpetuate the profiteering dairy industry is immoral to what ought to be regarded as a high degree. Only a jesuit would defend artificial insemination.
denzinger 1124 - "various moral errors"(of the jesuits) - "voluptuousness, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same ultimate species, and so it is enough to say in confession that on has procured a pollution." Condemned by pope alexander VII.
In the old testament, such that were involved in such an act were put to death, along with the animal. Just because the human in this case(rampant artificial insemination of animals) does not personally procure a pollution does not mean the sin is not or should not be there. A man cannot do that with another man without escaping the guilt of sin.
Why differentiate now?
PG, the "sodomizing" you saw in the video was not always to artificially inseminate.. since this is particularly importanr to you, you must learn to distinguish.
I own cows. Once they are pregnant, done by a real bull naturally, it is important the determine the approximate due date of the calf.
Some of what was in the video was just that, checking pregnancy to evaluate due dates. It was actually no different than what medical doctors do to pregnant women, except a cow is much larger and therefore an entire arm is sometimes needed. Consider how large a calf is when it is born: 75 to 100 lbs....
If I recall correctly, the video showed only two instances of artificial insemination.
-
PG, the "sodomizing" you saw in the video was not always to artificially inseminate.. since this is particularly importanr to you, you must learn to distinguish.
I own cows. Once they are pregnant, done by a real bull naturally, it is important the determine the approximate due date of the calf.
Some of what was in the video was just that, checking pregnancy to evaluate due dates. It was actually no different than what medical doctors do to pregnant women, except a cow is much larger and therefore an entire arm is sometimes needed. Consider how large a calf is when it is born: 75 to 100 lbs....
If I recall correctly, the video showed only two instances of artificial insemination.
Do you believe artificial insemination is wrong?
-
Do you believe artificial insemination is wrong?
Artificial insemination of humans is wrong. Animals are not humans. There is no obligation on them to practice the principles of sɛҳuąƖ morality binding on people. Animals have sex without marriage, are not required to be monogamous, and do not sin if they sɛҳuąƖly stimulate themselves.
I have not heard of any Catholic teaching against artificial insemination of animals and cannot imagine what basis there could be for such a teaching within the principles of Catholic moral theology.
-
Artificial insemination of humans is wrong. Animals are not humans. There is no obligation on them to practice the principles of sɛҳuąƖ morality binding on people. Animals have sex without marriage, are not required to be monogamous, and do not sin if they sɛҳuąƖly stimulate themselves.
I have not heard of any Catholic teaching against artificial insemination of animals and cannot imagine what basis there could be for such a teaching within the principles of Catholic moral theology.
Agreed. We can't make an analogy between human artificial insemination and that of animals. Now, it is wrong to be unnecessarily cruel to animals ... even in the interests of increasing the bottom line, but questions of sɛҳuąƖ morality are limited to human beings. Now, there would be a degree to which it would be wrong to force animals to do something directly contrary to nature (e.g. force ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior) ... just because it's a violation of nature, and not because there's any moral dimension to the animals involved.
-
Do you believe artificial insemination is wrong?
Yes.
Practicing AI on animals leads the way to AI on humans.
-
Yes.
Practicing AI on animals leads the way to AI on humans.
How?
-
How?
Nearly all medical experimentation is done on animals before it is done on humans.
AI in cows really began in 1933 and not on humans until 1943.
-
Agreed. We can't make an analogy between human artificial insemination and that of animals. Now, it is wrong to be unnecessarily cruel to animals ... even in the interests of increasing the bottom line, but questions of sɛҳuąƖ morality are limited to human beings. Now, there would be a degree to which it would be wrong to force animals to do something directly contrary to nature (e.g. force ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior) ... just because it's a violation of nature, and not because there's any moral dimension to the animals involved.
Did you watch the video? It sounds like what is in bold is applicable to the practice of stimulating the male bulls rear end.
-
Did you watch the video? It sounds like what is in bold is applicable to the practice of stimulating the male bulls rear end.
Now you are right! :) except...
.
In order to collect bull semen, first the vet tries to stimulate the male genitalia. This works most of the time.
.
If this doesn't work, then they bring out that machine. It IS inserted into the male in a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ way. However, this is actually NOT contrary to nature because I have SEEN a bull on the pasture, with loads of females around, attempting to mate males. So while it is wrong in HUMAN nature, it is clearly not wrong in the ANIMAL world.
.
The vet NEVER, and I mean never, inserts his arm into a male to stimulate.
-
God does not give humans the right to use machines to stimulate animals.
You really need to break this habit of stating all your opinions as if they are pronouncements from God.
-
Now you are right! :) except...
.
In order to collect bull semen, first the vet tries to stimulate the male genitalia. This works most of the time.
.
If this doesn't work, then they bring out that machine. It IS inserted into the male in a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ way. However, this is actually NOT contrary to nature because I have SEEN a bull on the pasture, with loads of females around, attempting to mate males. So while it is wrong in HUMAN nature, it is clearly not wrong in the ANIMAL world.
.
The vet NEVER, and I mean never, inserts his arm into a male to stimulate.
Is it possible that was just dominance posturing occurring? Perhaps it is also arguable that the bulls and cows of our day are not like those of old. Is that bull eating anything other than what bulls have traditionally always ate(grass)? Is it consuming any gmos? Was it a clone? What type of gene pool did it come from(please refrain from poking fun at me if I am off base, this is just warranted speculation)?
-
You really need to break this habit of stating all your opinions as if they are pronouncements from God.
God was angry at the israelites for digging water wells. dekoning figures he is probably safe.
-
God does not give humans the right to use machines to stimulate animals.
When and where did God say that??!!
-
Is it possible that was just dominance posturing occurring? Perhaps it is also arguable that the bulls and cows of our day are not like those of old. Is that bull eating anything other than what bulls have traditionally always ate(grass)? Is it consuming any gmos? Was it a clone? What type of gene pool did it come from(please refrain from poking fun at me if I am off base, this is just warranted speculation)?
I take your questions in all seriousness.
.
I am sorry. By "mating" I meant "trying to get pregnant".
.
Dominance "humping" does not involve excitation or penetration. I have seen actual penetration. And not only between male cows but other male animals to each other, too.
.
Grass always, no gmos, not a clone.
.
Don't know to what gene pool you refer.
-
Yes.
Practicing AI on animals leads the way to AI on humans.
Are you serious?
1. No, that is a classic example of the "slippery slope" fallacy. http://www.softschools.com/examples/grammar/slippery_slope_examples/391/
2. This assertion is even more ridiculous, since we ALREADY have artificial insemination of humans. Have you never heard of In Vitro Fertilization, fertility clinics, and so forth?
AI of animals and AI of humans are two separate issues, not to be mixed up or confused with each other. Unless you want to put humans and animals in the same boat. Protip: They are NOT in the same boat.
-
Are you serious?
1. No, that is a classic example of the "slippery slope" fallacy. http://www.softschools.com/examples/grammar/slippery_slope_examples/391/
2. This assertion is even more ridiculous, since we ALREADY have artificial insemination of humans. Have you never heard of In Vitro Fertilization, fertility clinics, and so forth?
AI of animals and AI of humans are two separate issues, not to be mixed up or confused with each other. Unless you want to put humans and animals in the same boat. Protip: They are NOT in the same boat.
I apologize.
I meant to say AI on animals lead the way to AI on humans.
Most medical experimentation begins with animals before they attempt with humans.
-
Continuing to proclaim error after correction by someone in authority.
That is the definition of "pertinacity in error," isn't it?
-
God was angry at the israelites for digging water wells. dekoning figures he is probably safe.
Uh... no?
The only thing me and TruthIsEternal (a misnomer if there ever were one) have in common is that he lives in my town.
-
We have to learn that JayneK, the Holy Inquisitor of Cath Info, is always right. Her word is the word of God, after all.
I am not always right, but I am very passionately opposed to heresy. Since I am occasionally accused of being a marrano or a judaizer due to my ethnic background, I am especially sensitive on the topic of this heresy.
-
That's fine. Your the boss.
Matthew is a well-educated Catholic and perfectly capable of identifying the heresy of judaizing without me saying anything about it. It is highly unlikely that my posts on the subject told him anything he did not already know or influenced him at all. He noticed someone posting error and implemented his usual policy for dealing with heresy on the forum. Somehow you manage to twist this in your mind to me being the boss. There is something wrong with the way you think.
Heresy is serious. I think that typical behaviour on forums desensitizes us to just how serious it is. Too many people express their disagreement on debatable matters by accusing their opponents of heresy. It's as if "heresy" is becoming a way to say "I disagree with you."
When a word gets thrown around this much it loses its power. Heresy is an offense against faith and against truth. Historically it was a crime punishable by death. While I do approve of Matthew's policies for treating heresy as the grave matter it is, that does not make me the boss.
-
Uh... no?
The only thing me and TruthIsEternal (a misnomer if there ever were one) have in common is that he lives in my town.
Sorry about that, my mistake, I confused you for truth is eternal.
-
Yes.
Practicing AI on animals leads the way to AI on humans.
We've been eating animals since the dawn of time and as far as I know eating other humans has never been in fashion.
-
We've been eating animals since the dawn of time and as far as I know eating other humans has never been in fashion.
We have not however been practicing artificial insemination on animals since the dawn of time. So, your argument is very poor. The slippery slope that you and matthew are attributing to fanny is not accurate. Slippery slope might be a legitimate criticism if Fanny's AI on animals were as you say something that has been occurring since the dawn of time. Instead, AI on animals is not an insignificant unrelated event that leads to a significant event like AI on humans. AI on animals is significant, novel, and scandalous. Not only that, but it better facilitates the success of implementation on humans, tangibly and intangibly. So, I see this as more of a near occasion conversation. And, catholics do not avoid sin. Catholics avoid the near occasion of sin. But, matthew censored my prior comment about near occasion. Perhaps he fears that slippery slope.
This is why I also criticize the renaissance and onwards dissection of dead human corpses. I do not care that it not the dead remains of a citizen, but instead just the remains of a foreign prisoner. That is a theosophist argument and mentality. That dead body was created by God, who is the God of all men, and whose body must be respected by way of the divine teaching that it is a corporal work of mercy to bury the dead. Your types would argue that this is slippery slope again, however we would not have what we might call this false dictatorship in healthcare without it, just like we would not have the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr(masonic) without usury(judaism)(= ʝʊdɛօmasonry). All of these are twin sisters. And, they are near occasions of sin at the very best. These are not examples of slippery slope.
Slippery slope regards the illogical connecting of contrasting and improbably unrelated events. Slippery slope is not relevant to the conversation of proximate near occasions, which this is.