It's too easy to immediately throw a wrench in your works because "lel pedo priests"

I know that people will say that

And I expect people to do so

Because then I mention how those cases are always homosexuals

With an inmense overrepresentation

So then you're admitting that the catholic clergy are gay

this is too easy dude

Of course I admit there is a mafia

step up your game

That is precisely what needs to be addressed

And why a purge is needed

And thus we see that the modern obsession with having sex in order to have a good life has infiltrated even the Orthodox because they're using it as an example of why their priesthood is better

@ChuuniMage our orthobros are at it again

Me, and many others have been fighting that plague for years, while leftists close their eyes the moment someone starts saying names

But that's to be expected from a group of people who ignore Christ teaching on divorce and remarriage

(((orthodox)))

Reminder that orthodox literally perfer muslims over catholics

So I can ask "what havev you done to fight against the abuse of the homosexuals?"

Oh definitely Spartan they're definitely just as sex obsessed as the Jews

Don't be autistic enough to start petty fights. But if someone wants to say "you will be given this answer", do so explicitely.

Hence all the crowing about how their priests travel to have sex with their wives

*are able to have sex with their wives

🤔

Originally, I was just trying to point out that being smug about lefties being paedophiles doesn't work when anyone could spend zero effort to just say "pedo priests lel" and immediately just derail the topic of conversation into defense of that topic

Which shows that the attempted plan of dialogue is flawed in a very obvious way

Smugness being a motivation for dialogue also seems unwise

but if you're going to be smug it needs to be airtight smug to get away with it

If the entire goal was to shut them up then tbh the best tactic might be a variation on "If they ask you to go with them one mile, go with them two", and get a web of SJW logic to prevent them from saying anything you find offensive

If they agree with their own logic they have to dismantle their own arguments in order to continue blaspheming

On the contrary, as I said and have done, I want them to mention priests, because I have a collection of reports with statistics about how many are homosexuals. It caught me off guard, however, a cheap attack on this very server, since it wasn't presented as a potential risk. And of course, I will say that I find offensive anything they say

That's the problem - The collection of reports and statistics is still playing on the "pedo priests" turf. They're on the offensive, you're on the defensive, and the discussion will get bogged down in detail and drag on for too long. That's fine if *that's* your preferred strategy, to just "win" arguments by attrition, but that's not as useful as turning their own logic against them, and forcing them to dismantle their own worldview.

Picking where to actually have an argument is important, not just the details of the argument and if you can be self-satisfied in how technically correct it is.

Enemies do not care about how technically correct your argument is, and it won't convince them of anything.

Their worldview can be reduced to the glorification of orgies and hedonism. Any "logic" they use is just some way to push that glorification. I would say that showing the perversion of such things is just as important as showing how they are hypocrites.

I could as well say that they don't care about being called hypocrites, or how much you try to use their logic against them. They will just say "no", call you a bigot and repeat how wonderful sodomy is

I don't think their worldview can be reduced to the glorification of orgies and hedonism. That's their end goal, but the worldview supports the end goal. The end goal isn't the worldview.

You'd be surprised how much it can be reduced to that. I constantly observe what they do, and what they defend, and there is always the same common factor. Their logic/worldview doesn't apply when it comes to what they want to defend. So their hedonism isn't a consequence of their worldview. Their worldview is something they came up with to somehow defend perversion with a straight face.

That's what I mean - They came up with the worldview *to defend* their perversion. The perversion is just there, pulling them from behind the scenes.

But the worldview is the philosophies and sentiments that motivate them to defend those perversions - All part and parcel of the modernist spirit.

That's their idol

The hedonism and perversion aren't their idols - they use the idols of modernism and postmodernism to support their hedonism and perversion