Mr. Hays reaches a new low with me in this response. His response to cathmom5 is nothing short of anti-Catholic BIGOTRY.
If a Catholic indulges in a blanket, prejudicial smear of Protestants by impugning the motives of all Protestants who support “artificial” birth control, even though said Catholic is in no position to know their motives, that’s not anti-Protestant bigotry–but if a Protestant responds with a reductio ad absurdum, that’s “anti-Catholic BIGOTRAY”!
Windsor betrays the insular mindset of the team player. The team player automatically cheers his own team and automatically jeers the other team. The team player keeps a tally of every real or imagined foul by the other team while turning a blind eye to every foul by his own team.
It’s the Mafia mentality. One standard of la familia, another standard for outsiders.
Have SOME popes been "bad popes" and sinned as Hays accuses? Perhaps - but it is NOT the norm and neither is the rationale behind Natural Family Planning. It appears to me that cathmom5 struck a nerve with Mr. Hays and he lashed out irrationally. For example of this irrationality - Pope John Paul II was a public proponent of Natural Family Planning* - and I would challenge Mr. Hays to provide PROOF or at least some SOUND EVIDENCE of any such "lechery" - such as "fornicat(ing) with nuns and hookers" with Bl. Pope John Paul II. Such debased language without some sort of support is irresponsible, invalid argumentation and even un-Christian.
Here’s a guy who presumes to be an apologist for Rome, but he can’t grasp basic forms of argument. He doesn’t grasp the nature of a tu quoque, or a reductio ad absurdum.
An argument from analogy only has to be analogous to be valid. The counterargument doesn’t have to be any truer than the argument it opposes.
That’s the point. For the argument works either way.
If it’s valid for cathmom5 to impute immoral motives to millions of Protestants she’s never met, then it’s valid for me to impute immoral motives to the popes.
Notice that Scott Windsor doesn’t demand any evidence or proof from cathmom5 for her defamatory allegations. That’s because she’s a fellow teammate, so the rules are different for her.
My argument is predicated on a conditional premise: if her argument is valid, and my argument is analogous, then my argument is valid.
But Scott Windsor is one of those sociopathic partisans who will fly into a rage the moment you make their team play by the same rules. A loyalist can never step out of his own viewpoint to see an issue from the viewpoint of the Other. It’s the same thing we see in the political sphere every day.