jump to navigation

Anti-Catholic rant at Pandagon requires attention June 14, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Catholicism, Pandamansanity, Politics.

I guess I can understand Pam over at Pandagon. She’s a lesbian and feeling persecuted. But Amanda is something else. This is one of the most unhappy, bitter women I can remember ever coming across.

I mean sure, I often look like a curmudgeon, but compared to Ms. Marcotte I end up looking like the Good Humor Man.

Angry, angry woman. Particularly if the issue is either pro-Christian or anti-birth control. And when those twain shall meet, she really gets bent out of shape. This post in particular is so hostile (not to mention deeply ill-informed) on the Catholic Church and its positions on birth control and pre-Cana education that I felt it required some redress, in my usual cranky fashion. Since I fully expect my humble commentary to be put on the cyber-slag heap over there, I thought I’d publish my thoughts over here just to make sure they don’t get totally lost.

If you have a strong stomach, I suggest that you go see the actual post and read it in all of its acerbic and repulsive degeneracy.

This is going to be SUCH a waste of time. . .but because I’m channelling Don Quixote today, I’ll have a tilt anyway.

I ran off and checked my pills. It doesn’t say a damn thing about sloughing off embryos. The reason it doesn’t say that is because that’s not how it works. (the last sentence links to PZ Myers claiming that Plan B does not cause abortions.)

You are either misguided or lying. Plan B and the Pill are not the same thing, and anyway BOTH of them will terminate a fertilized egg.

In the meantime, it’s important and cannot be hammered home enough—NFP is birth control. Duh. The Church is not opposed to birth control, only artificial birth control. But don’t let that get in the way of your rant.

Actually, the failure rate of actual use of NFP is 25%. Fine. you use your politically motivated stats, I’ll use mine. (failure rates as high as 36% [http://www.prolife.com/CONDOMS.html])

This contradiction is resolved by using a form of birth control that has a high failure rate and is a source of unnecessary tension in relationships. Not in the marriages I know that use it. Including mine.

“Research, such as a study done at Michigan State University, shows increased communication and greater marital satisfaction among couples who use NFP. In fact, according to a study by Aquilar, the divorce rate for couples who use NFP might be as low as 0.6%”

And while we’re pulling numbers directly out of our ass, I’ll say that the divorce rate for couples who use NFP might be as high as 94.7%. Prove your numbers.

Not that any of this matters. Since I am barking against the party line here, I actually expect my comments to go either unmoderated/unaccepted, or outright deleted.

After this, maybe Dr. Sanity and I can analyze Amanda and attempt to uncover the basis of her deep animus to all things Catholic. . .like perhaps a deep-seated concern that maybe it is actually true, but this opposes her desire to live her life as she sees fit. . .no surprise, I guess. Heaven knows her lifestyle certainly has rendered her happy and easygoing. . .




1. MattP - June 14, 2006

I wish you had used less ad hominem in this post. I don’t think the differences between Amanda Marcotte’s posts (in the main) and Pam Spaulding’s (in the main) should be attributed to either of their sexualities or personalities. Why not stand on stronger ground and attack Marcotte’s for her oft being hypocritical and poorly argued, while Spaulding’s are generally well-supported?

2. demolition65 - June 14, 2006

It was not my intent to suggest that the “differences” are due to sexuality. I do see. . .in some part. . .Pam’s orientation as fueling her outrage, while Amanda’s is of a different flavor altogether.

Nevertheless, your criticism re: ad hom attacks on my part is well taken. it is a shortcoming on my part with which I often wrestle. . .and lose.

3. Sophist - June 15, 2006

"This is one of the most unhappy, bitter women I can remember ever coming across."

J****, why don't you just call her fat, and insinuate that she's just mad because she can't attract a man? Because if you're pretty much arguing at that level anyway, you might as well be honest about it.

"Angry, angry woman."

Ah yes, the old "angry woman" canard. How trite.

Oh, and the faux concern over Amanda's supposed problems? That shtick has been done to death.

"it is a shortcoming on my part with which I often wrestle. . .and lose."

Shortcoming my ass. It's clearly the fault of your unhealthy lifestyle, which has left you a bitter, angry husk. Probably the result of clinging to a belief you know in your heart-of-hearts is a scam, but which you cannot let go of because you are too scared to find your own way in this cold,scary world.

It's sad, really.

4. Sophist - June 15, 2006

Oh, and despite your dire predictions of jack-booted moderators stomping all over your post, it remains un-edited and undeleted, so that everyone can observe your intellectual prowess.

A more fitting punishment I could not imagine.

5. demolition65 - June 15, 2006

Probably the result of clinging to a belief you know in your heart-of-hearts is a scam, but which you cannot let go of because you are too scared to find your own way in this cold,scary world.


A sophist in ancient Greece was often one who argued for the sake of argument, and had no interest in the truth.

Some, like Gorgias, asserted that it was not necessary to have any knowledge of a subject to give satisfactory replies as regards it. Thus, Gorgias ostentatiously answered any question on any subject instantly and without consideration. To attain these ends mere quibbling, and the scoring of verbal points were employed. In this way, the sophists tried to entangle, entrap, and confuse their opponents, and even, if this were not possible, to beat them down by mere violence and noise. They sought also to dazzle by means of strange or flowery metaphors, by unusual figures of speech, by epigrams and paradoxes, and in general by being clever and smart, rather than earnest and truthful.

Nice to see you living up to your name, “Sophist.”

6. Tammy - June 15, 2006

My guess is his bitter, repellent personality is caused by his wife refusing her conjugal duties to him and claiming a semi-permanent state of ovulation.

7. demolition65 - June 15, 2006

*snickers again*

I might have guessed at the quality of rhetoric I would receive from the Pandagon echo-chamber horde. You are not disappointing.

As for conjugal “duties”, they are far from “duties”. Much more along the lines of “interests”, shall we say. As for their regularity. . . modesty forbids me from commenting, sweetie.

8. Sophist - June 15, 2006

I might have guessed at the quality of rhetoric I would receive from the Pandagon echo-chamber horde.

It's your rhetoric, genius. We've simply thrown it right back at you to point out how idiotic it is. So snicker away–but keep in mind, you're laughing at yourself. 

9. demolition65 - June 16, 2006

Keep talking away there, Gorgia.

10. GH - September 19, 2006

For a fellow who attends a parrots catholic beliefs and apparently doesn’t like dissenting views how can you be anythingbut a hypocrite to call a blog with the myriad of voices over there an ‘echo chamber’.

You simply didn’t defeat even one of her arguments.

11. demolition65 - September 20, 2006

Try again, GH. I surely did, but you can’t lead a one-eyed pig to water and make it drink.

12. demolition65 - February 8, 2007

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred commenteed (in another thread, though I think they meant it for this thread):

SC&A | sigmundcarlandalfred@gmail.com | sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com | IP:

Good post.

I left a comment at Pandagon that surprisingly, was posted. I quoted Marcotte’s own words. I wrote:

“You said it yourself.


“WWE may like to offend everyone, but offending people and asking them to still cheer on the offensive statement is completely ass-backwards. They’re offending people without really thinking about why it’s offensive, which in turn destroys all discernment between statements. They can add in any subtext they want after the fact, but when you speak in broad images and short slogans, “Mow My Lawn, Eddie” speaks volumes more than any subtext you can imagine, particularly if that subtext isn’t actually aired until you get in trouble.”

In fact, does anyone really expect John Edwards, or any other presidential candidate, to remain silent when Catholics are bashed? Should candidates remain silent if Jews or blacks that don’t support a particular agenda are vilified?

Presidents and presidential candidates represent the entire nation, not just those who supported him or her. While that does not mean that he or she must kowtow to opponents, it does not mean that opponents can be vilified or demonized, either.

The problem isn’t necessarily John Edwards.”

This isn’t rocket science.

Feb 7, 6:17 PM — [ Edit | Delete | Unapprove | Approve | Spam | View Post ]

13. Bree Z Hanus NYC - February 13, 2007

ms marcotte It wasn’t so much what you said as how you said it. Oh and your tendency to target that group of which you have so little knowledge . You know actually it was what you said too. All I know is that JE is breathing a gutless sigh of relief over your gutless quitting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: