Gyroscopic Investing

How is it possible that this wench doesn't yet have her own thread on here? Is it just a given that we all know she was a total fraud?

barrett wrote:How is it possible that this wench doesn't yet have her own thread on here? Is it just a given that we all know she was a total fraud?

What do you mean? She wasn't a selfless, giving person to those who had little hope?

It seems obligatory these days to deprecate anyone who personifies the "better" qualities of humanness. I suppose it makes those who don't match up feel better about themselves by proving that nobody is any better than they are. But building oneself up by breaking down everything good and noble, and adopting a philosophy that nothing is better than anything else, is a poor substitute for genuine self-respect.

Christopher Hitchens wrote a book about Mother Teresa called "The Missionary Position". I have only read excerpts but suffice it to say he didn't think too highly of her. He was even asked by the Vatican to be the "Devil's Advocate" against her Sainthood but I guess he didn't make the case. He was surprised to learn it was no longer a paying position as it had been in the past but he volunteered to do the devil's work free of charge any way.

Hitchens is one piece of work. The title of his book, "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" tells you something about the maturity level of this guy. He's exactly the type I was talking about in my post above.

His particular criticisms of Mother Teresa are insubstantial, at best, and at worst brand him as a loser with an agenda. For example, one of his main issues was Mother Teresa's so-called "secret baptising" of dying patients. According to Hitchens, she would"pretend" to be cooling a patient's face with a moist cloth, but she would be quietly praying and reciting the words of the Catholic baptism. So what kind of pervert has a problem with this? What harm did it do anyone? Let me guess: It intruded on somebody's safe space.

Maddy wrote:a loser with an agenda.

Bingo. He's just another peddler of fashionable intolerance.

Maddy wrote:It seems obligatory these days to deprecate anyone who personifies the "better" qualities of humanness. I suppose it makes those who don't match up feel better about themselves by proving that nobody is any better than they are. But building oneself up by breaking down everything good and noble, and adopting a philosophy that nothing is better than anything else, is a poor substitute for genuine self-respect.

+1 Somebody has their head screwed on straight. Seems that trying to stand out is always risky precisely because so many will try to drag you down or denigrate your accomplishments, for whatever reason.

Pointedstick wrote:

Maddy wrote:It seems obligatory these days to deprecate anyone who personifies the "better" qualities of humanness. I suppose it makes those who don't match up feel better about themselves by proving that nobody is any better than they are. But building oneself up by breaking down everything good and noble, and adopting a philosophy that nothing is better than anything else, is a poor substitute for genuine self-respect.

+1 Somebody has their head screwed on straight. Seems that trying to stand out is always risky precisely because so many will try to drag you down or denigrate your accomplishments, for whatever reason.

+2

This is bound to be seen by most Catholics as a positive thing. I'm no authority on the process of canonization, but my impression is that this is a significant break with the past, when factors such as martyrdom, generic heroism, and intercession in multiple miracles weighed more heavily than plain old goodness.

Maddy wrote:This is bound to be seen by most Catholics as a positive thing. I'm no authority on the process of canonization, but my impression is that this is a significant break with the past, when factors such as martyrdom, generic heroism, and intercession in multiple miracles weighed more heavily than plain old goodness.

So she's been cannonized, whatever that means? Well that's encouraging if what you say is true. More evidence of our ongoing shift towards empathy and understanding. Now if only men would stop being so pussified and revert to being man of da houze. Can you imagine a man demanding he needs his "safe space"? Yowza!



Is being baptized without your consent considered rape?

Now if only men would stop being so pussified and revert to being man of da houze.

MG, I love ya, man, but you've been a little bit one track lately. Did something happen to get your panties all in a wad? Uh, I mean, skivvies.

Maddy wrote:

Now if only men would stop being so pussified and revert to being man of da houze.

MG, I love ya, man, but you've been a little bit one track lately. Did something happen to get your panties all in a wad? Uh, I mean, skivvies.

Not sure, but I think he may have shot it ... or possibly another vowel.

... Mountaineer

Maddy wrote:MG, I love ya, man, but you've been a little bit one track lately. Did something happen to get your panties all in a wad? Uh, I mean, skivvies.

The disgust comes and goes. This is currently a "risk on" period.

Tyler wrote:

Maddy wrote:a loser with an agenda.

Bingo. He's just another peddler of fashionable intolerance.

Actually, he died a couple of years ago of throat cancer so he's not peddling it any more.

Desert wrote:

curlew wrote:

Tyler wrote:
Bingo. He's just another peddler of fashionable intolerance.

Actually, he died a couple of years ago of throat cancer so he's not peddling it any more.

I was a Hitchens fan in my atheist years, but could always see that he was more of an entertainer than a serious thinker. He was sort of the Michael Moore of the new atheists; fun to watch if you agree with him, as long as you don't look too deeply at the real story.

That might be an accurate characterization but I have a hard time getting my head around the "peddler of fashionable intolerance" idea. He found religion to be odious and felt a strong compulsion to express his opinion on the subject but how is that "intolerant", pray tell?

Desert wrote:I was a Hitchens fan in my atheist years, but could always see that he was more of an entertainer than a serious thinker. He was sort of the Michael Moore of the new atheists; fun to watch if you agree with him, as long as you don't look too deeply at the real story.

What are the "new atheists"?

MachineGhost wrote:

Desert wrote:I was a Hitchens fan in my atheist years, but could always see that he was more of an entertainer than a serious thinker. He was sort of the Michael Moore of the new atheists; fun to watch if you agree with him, as long as you don't look too deeply at the real story.

What are the "new atheists"?

The ones that don't keep their mouths shut.

curlew wrote:

Tyler wrote:

Maddy wrote:a loser with an agenda.

Bingo. He's just another peddler of fashionable intolerance.

Actually, he died a couple of years ago of throat cancer so he's not peddling it any more.

Anything unusual about the cancer? Could this be miracle #3, out of the Vatican's lesser known category, "Old Testament Vengeance."

Kriegsspiel wrote: Anything unusual about the cancer? Could this be miracle #3, out of the Vatican's lesser known category, "Old Testament Vengeance."

You owe me a new keyboard.

curlew wrote: That might be an accurate characterization but I have a hard time getting my head around the "peddler of fashionable intolerance" idea. He found religion to be odious and felt a strong compulsion to express his opinion on the subject but how is that "intolerant", pray tell?

Being an opinionated atheist is fine, and it's absolutely possible to do so while still being generally respectful of religious people. (Penn Jillette comes to mind -- smart, cutting, funny, and still capable of saying this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8)

IMHO, writing a book tearing down Mother Teresa and throwing a sexual wordplay in the title is another thing entirely. The guy made a career of being an asshat.

Tyler wrote:IMHO, writing a book tearing down Mother Teresa and throwing a sexual wordplay in the title is another thing entirely. The guy made a career of being an asshat.

I never read the book so I can't comment on the contents of it. You may be right about the "asshat" nature of the title but one of Hitchen's favorite subjects was the sexual hypocrisy of the Catholic Church so I suspect he was thinking in that vein when he chose the title. I don't know that he had any firsthand knowledge of it himself but another one of the "new atheists", Richard Dawkins did.