From: chris_pimbury{at}yahoo.com

On Mar 26, 9:51 pm, "CE"  wrote:
> On Mar 26, 3:17 pm, "ChrisN"  wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 11:30 pm, "CE"  wrote:
>
> > > 
>
> > > > My opinion is that woman would bring _different_ things to the
> > > > priesthood and that in doing so they would bring equal
value to the
> > > > role.
> > > > I don't see how the above view is sexist.
>
> > > I know you don't see it. That's what makes it not only sexist but
> > > pathetic as well.
>
> > Resorting to abuse is pathetic. Not having a coherent argument to
> > support your assertions is pathetic.
>
> Well, let's see. I wrote:
>
>Sexism is discrimination or devaluation based on a person's gender.
>When you suggest that male bishops are somehow less capable of doing
>their jobs because they are men, that's discrimination based on their
>gender.

Yes, but I've already answered this argument by contending that woman and
men can bring equal value to a role but have different strengths and
weaknesses. You think this is sexist whilst I think it is acknowledging
reality. We'd have to start citing psychometric data at each other to prove
this one way or another but life's too short.

> Sexism is discrimination or devaluation based on a person's gender.
> When you suggest that male bishops are somehow less capable of doing
> their jobs because they are men, that's discrimination

Can't woman and men can be equally capable of doing their jobs without
doing the same things in every situation?

> > > > Returning to the comment you attacked - do you think that a woman
> > > > bishop would have put a known pedophile in a position
where they would
> > > > have access to children?
>
> > > The question is irrelevent since there can be no women priests and
> > > therefore no women bishops.
>
> > > However, if you're asking me whether .....
>
> > No. I asked a specific question didn't I?
>
> Yes, you did ask a specific question. And I gave you a specific
>
> answer. I wrote:
> > Returning to the comment you attacked - do you think that a woman
> > bishop would have put a known pedophile in a position where they would
> > have access to children?
>
> The question is irrelevent since there can be no women priests and
> therefore no women bishops.

The lack of woman bishops doesn't matter because it's a hypothetical question.

> I then went on to anticipate variations of your question and answer
> them as well. I wrote:
>
> However, if you're asking me whether women can be guilty of sex-
> related crimes, then the answer is yes. If you're asking me if women
> can be guilty of criminal negligence, then the answer is also yes.
> And
> if you're asking me whether a woman can guilty of obstruction of
> justice, then the answer is yes.

I guess from your statements that you _do_ think a woman bishop would put a
known pedophile in a position where they would have access to children.

As I said originally, I think this is _unlikely_ but we'll just have to disagree.

Chris

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag