Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

KC Chiefs kicker complains about "emasculation of men," gay pride & says women should be homemakers

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by orangeblue_coop, May 16, 2024.

  1. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    14,203
    14,358
    3,363
    Jun 14, 2007

    TLDR.

    But I intend to, when I get the time. Thank you for posting it, and your thoughts.

    As I said in the post you replied to, I'll reserve comment until I can read and process what the Pope actually wrote.
     
  2. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    14,203
    14,358
    3,363
    Jun 14, 2007
    The Pope talking about "his wife" would surely be problematic.

    Was that your point?
     
  3. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    14,203
    14,358
    3,363
    Jun 14, 2007

    I don't know about any cat article, but...

    Are any of y'all capable of addressing Butker's speech without caricaturing it into a strawman?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. lacuna

    lacuna The Conscience of Too Hot Moderator VIP Member

    63,334
    3,709
    2,353
    Apr 8, 2007
    Redlands, Colorado
    According to an article in the National Catholic Register the Pope did not write the Fiducia Supplicans. It was written by Argentine Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, appointed by Francis as prefect to the Dicastery Doctrine of the Faith. The Dicastery wrote the document and Francis signed or approved it.

    Take a look at what's posted at this link - Víctor Manuel Fernández - Wikipedia
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. phatGator

    phatGator GC Hall of Fame

    5,577
    5,242
    2,213
    Dec 3, 2007
    Dayton, Ohio
    I thought there was a four paragraph quotation limit. :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    8,672
    842
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    I did caricature it or paraphrase for brevity, but this was the gist of what was so offensive about his presentation. To highlight the offensive bits is not a strawman. Maybe you somehow disagree with this interpretation, but having seen the video and read the words - this is how it came off. I have the backing of the nuns on this one lol.
     
  7. lacuna

    lacuna The Conscience of Too Hot Moderator VIP Member

    63,334
    3,709
    2,353
    Apr 8, 2007
    Redlands, Colorado
    ^^^ There is, but exceptions can be made from time to time on publicly distributed documents if no copyright exists or restricts them. This^^^ falls into that category as would the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution.

    It seemed worthwhile to copy the entire portion for possible discussion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. mrhansduck

    mrhansduck GC Hall of Fame

    4,754
    990
    1,788
    Nov 23, 2021
    I assume you’re not Catholic - if you believe that every Christian has equal knowledge, qualifications, and authority to interpret the Bible for themselves?
     
  9. citygator

    citygator VIP Member

    11,171
    2,507
    3,303
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    His speech sucked. Abortion and LGBT bashing is such an inspirational grad topic. Funny a kicker lecturing priests on how to be a priest, how does that help graduates?

    There are a million ways to say whether you go on to be a physicist like my mother or a homemaker like my wife…and his version of “diabolical lies” of a career just is a bad speech note for a graduation.

    Fatherless homes? Being masculine? Great grad speech vibe. Covid conspiracy mentioned a few times. And finally “you live in a post-God world”.

    It was a shitty speech worthy of mockery but there was enough flying in the conspiracy airspace for right wingers to run on here and what… say that was a good speech? It sucked.
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  10. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    8,672
    842
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    +1.

    Most of the “outrage” I’ve seen is hyper focused on that short mysogynistic bit addressed to “the ladies in the room”, but it’s not like the rest of the speech was motivational or uplifting, or even had a point. A mishmash of conspiracy, grievance, and online talking points.

    Kind of funny the “shut up and play” folks are trying to defend this, presumably because he hits on a few of their taking points. To be clear, the speech would be crazy as a graduation speech if the Pope himself gave it. But for a 28 year old using a graduation speech basically for punching up at the Catholic hierarchy, it comes of as… umm… extra special.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  11. citygator

    citygator VIP Member

    11,171
    2,507
    3,303
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    It was the speech he wanted to give. Not a speech the grads needed to hear. Pride is the worst of sins.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  12. antny1

    antny1 GC Hall of Fame

    5,014
    2,612
    2,498
    Dec 3, 2019
    Probably the most succinct and well put criticisms I've heard.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. lacuna

    lacuna The Conscience of Too Hot Moderator VIP Member

    63,334
    3,709
    2,353
    Apr 8, 2007
    Redlands, Colorado
    Nailed it! [​IMG]
     
  14. duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    16,006
    1,182
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    Bible thumper.
     
  15. duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    16,006
    1,182
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    Buckner single-handedly persuaded the left that they knew what a woman was.

    It took over a year. But now everybody’s on the same page.
     
    • Funny Funny x 5
  16. citygator

    citygator VIP Member

    11,171
    2,507
    3,303
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    IMG_0754.gif
     
  17. duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    16,006
    1,182
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    • Funny Funny x 2
  18. Contra

    Contra GC Hall of Fame

    1,343
    339
    178
    May 15, 2023
    FWIW, it is not my intention to take this thread far down the path from the OP. I think there is a lot to still analyze as far as the OP is concerned (even 20 pages in), and I would push back very hard on the leftists or those who are leftist-minded or leftist sympathizers in condemning Harrison Butker for being prideful, patriarchalist, etc. You have to wonder what these people would say if they lived in the time of Jesus, and they saw him drive the money changers out of the temple and take the Pharisees and Sadducees to task for their moral and spiritual compromising. There are many merits to Butker's critiques of the left and the leftist infiltration of the Catholic Church that have occurred because cowards will not stand up and say anything about people who are trying to change the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith in ways that are right in their own eyes and right in the eyes of the culture. These people are driven by cultural winds, being tossed to and fro by them, having an allegiance to culture and politics first and subservience to Christ and religion that is secondary to that. Cultural compromise is their religion and their God. The problem Harrison Butker is striking at goes way beyond Catholicism, and it certainly applies to other denominations outside of Catholicism as well. The allure and seduction of culture and the approval of men to tempt us to not hold fast to the first principles of religion is a powerful powerful force that can be seen in every age and every era. Purity of religion is of paramount importance to any respectable religion, and anyone who flippantly does not care about the purity of their religion does not have a religion worth following or devoting oneself to. Cultural compromise is a terrible religion because you have no idea where the winds of culture will be in 100 years. You float and blow with the winds of culture, which will always be moving and changing generation to generation. So, you never have any hope that where you stand is actually on unshifting rock, but you are always standing on shifting sand. What we consider to be evil and reprehensible now is something culture could be celebrating in 1 or 2 generations. The 10 commandments were written on stone for a reason, and the reason was to demonstrate their immutability. What is carved on stone is permanent. Any true religion worth following should have a property of immutability to it. If it is not immutable it is not true. It is not timeless, and there is no guarantee that what you are clinging to has any properties of eternity in it.

    Having said this, we can talk about knowledge, authority, and qualifications. Lets discuss by way of analogy. The US Constitution is a document that has authority. I think everyone could agree with this. We can even say that the SCOTUS has been given the authority to interpret the Constitution, but what do we do with Dobbs and Rowe, which directly contradict one another? How do we deal with a court that has contradicted itself? It directly brings into question the nature of the authority of the court. So, then we must have some kind of theory of the court's authority that accounts for the contradictions of the court throughout time. I think there are a few options here:

    a) we could put our heads in the sand and simply deny the court has ever contradicted itself. We could sweep the problem under the rug and pretend it does not exist.

    b) we could completely invent a new theory of legal truth that says legal truth evolves with time and it is simply the latest shifting of the sand and the blowing of the wind, and there is no such thing as timeless permanent immutable truth in the legal realm in a legal document. No legal document crafted anywhere on the planet can have the property that the 10 commandments have of being written in permanent immutable stone, but all legally binding government documents change meaning over time as living and breathing documents.

    c) we could hold the view that courts, while being helpful and right at times do err, and that we must yield priority to the Constitution itself as being a timeless and immutable document, and courts who make decrees in contradiction with the Constitution and its original authorial intent have abused and improperly used their authority.

    d) We could adopt a cafeteria line approach, and we could simply look at the history of the SCOTUS as a buffet line. We could pick the rulings of the court that are the apple of our eye, and we could say those are right because we simply choose to believe what is most self-serving to us.
    Any single statement made by a Pope that contradicts another statement made by another Pope opens this can of worms where we have to start asking these types of questions. To my knowledge, every Catholic when pressed with statements different Popes have made retreats to one of those positions. Some will openly admit that not everything every Pope says is correct, and they would simply say they disagree with off the cuff statements made by Popes from time to time. The third position is the most tenable of the four options IMO, and I think there are some Catholics who hold that view regarding statements made by Popes. Take one more step beyond that, and you have the position I hold, which is the Berean mindset of Acts 17, where the Bereans authenticated the authority of the person teaching them in religious and spiritual matters by ensuring that what they were being taught aligned with the scriptures. We know the authority of those who claim to have authority to interpret the Bible based on if their teaching and conduct agrees or disagrees with the Bible. That is the way it was in the book of Acts in the early church.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2024
    • Like Like x 1
  19. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    20,702
    1,703
    1,763
    Apr 8, 2007
    Harrison Butker's new uniform.
    upload_2024-5-19_17-5-27.jpeg
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. gatorjo

    gatorjo GC Hall of Fame

    1,700
    315
    213
    Feb 24, 2024
    But why do people who believe all of that vote for a "political party" that is jut a defense and misinformation apparatus for an adulterous, criminal, racist rapist?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1