Could you provide a reasonend argument as to the evidence that Pope Paul VI predictions are false?
Violence against women is way down. Laws limiting the occupations of women and the rights to own property of women are way down. If by respect you mean “keep them barefoot and in the kitchen and punish them if they go out and risk their precious lady parts” then I won’t be able to convince you, because by respect I mean “acknowledge the autonomy and independence of independent agents and provide societal protections against coercion by abuse or threats of abuse.”
If you want to understand what someone else is saying it makes sense to look past the way you yourself define terms.
If you want to say Pope Paul VI’s prediction is wrong it would make sense to use a definition of respect of Pope Paul VI. To me the claim that Pope Paul VI would define respect for woman as “acknowledge the autonomy and independence of independent agents and provide societal protections against coercion by abuse or threats of abuse” seems wrong.
Do you really believe that’s Pope Paul VI definition?
I suppose if you were asking me “do you think Pope Paul VI thinks he is wrong when he makes these four predictions” it might make sense to use definitions of these terms common among Catholics.
Do you really believe that Pope Paul VI believes when he refers to respecting women or morality that it is his personal definition of morality or respect he is speaking of, or do you suppose he thinks and would claim he is really talking about something real and external to him in discussing Morality and Respect? Since Catholic is a Latin word meaning Universal, I’d bet that he, like most other Catholic dogmatists in history, would not accept that his statements are just true for him and are not also true for people who disagree with him. What do you think about that?
In any case, the original quote speaks of the cool people being wrong, so wouldn’t it make at least as much sense to use the terms respect and morality in ways that the cool people would agree with in examining these questions?
In light of the above questions, arrogating the words Respect and Morality to only their papal definitions will not be fruitful for you, either in this discussion or in your own thinking on these issues.
Do you really believe that Pope Paul VI believes when he refers to respecting women or morality that it is his personal definition of morality or respect he is speaking of
I didn’t use the word “personal”. Of course he speaks about the position of the catholic church. In this case the position that the catholic church had in 1968 when he made his prediction.
Part of the idea of catholic faith is that something like the meaning of “respecting women” get’s defined top-down.
In any case, the original quote speaks of the cool people being wrong, so wouldn’t it make at least as much sense to use the terms respect and morality in ways that the cool people would agree with in examining these questions?
In light of the above questions, arrogating the words Respect and Morality to only their papal definitions will not be fruitful for you
That’s not what I’m doing. I have no problem with using different definitions of terms depending on the text I’m reading. If you can only use one defnition and try to interpret what everyone is saying through that definition you are likely to misunderstand the position of people who disagree with you.
It’s bad to have habits that make it hard to understand what people with different mindsets are saying.
It allows you to have all those tribal beliefs of the cool people crowd without spending any conscious thought in rationally examining your beliefs.
Violence against women is way down. Laws limiting the occupations of women and the rights to own property of women are way down. If by respect you mean “keep them barefoot and in the kitchen and punish them if they go out and risk their precious lady parts” then I won’t be able to convince you, because by respect I mean “acknowledge the autonomy and independence of independent agents and provide societal protections against coercion by abuse or threats of abuse.”
Your welcome.
If you want to understand what someone else is saying it makes sense to look past the way you yourself define terms.
If you want to say Pope Paul VI’s prediction is wrong it would make sense to use a definition of respect of Pope Paul VI. To me the claim that Pope Paul VI would define respect for woman as “acknowledge the autonomy and independence of independent agents and provide societal protections against coercion by abuse or threats of abuse” seems wrong.
Do you really believe that’s Pope Paul VI definition?
I suppose if you were asking me “do you think Pope Paul VI thinks he is wrong when he makes these four predictions” it might make sense to use definitions of these terms common among Catholics.
Do you really believe that Pope Paul VI believes when he refers to respecting women or morality that it is his personal definition of morality or respect he is speaking of, or do you suppose he thinks and would claim he is really talking about something real and external to him in discussing Morality and Respect? Since Catholic is a Latin word meaning Universal, I’d bet that he, like most other Catholic dogmatists in history, would not accept that his statements are just true for him and are not also true for people who disagree with him. What do you think about that?
In any case, the original quote speaks of the cool people being wrong, so wouldn’t it make at least as much sense to use the terms respect and morality in ways that the cool people would agree with in examining these questions?
In light of the above questions, arrogating the words Respect and Morality to only their papal definitions will not be fruitful for you, either in this discussion or in your own thinking on these issues.
I didn’t use the word “personal”. Of course he speaks about the position of the catholic church. In this case the position that the catholic church had in 1968 when he made his prediction.
Part of the idea of catholic faith is that something like the meaning of “respecting women” get’s defined top-down.
That’s not what I’m doing. I have no problem with using different definitions of terms depending on the text I’m reading. If you can only use one defnition and try to interpret what everyone is saying through that definition you are likely to misunderstand the position of people who disagree with you.
It’s bad to have habits that make it hard to understand what people with different mindsets are saying. It allows you to have all those tribal beliefs of the cool people crowd without spending any conscious thought in rationally examining your beliefs.