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.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIs there a link where we can read the full discussion?
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.
ReplyDeleteSteve - can you please tell us how you avoid being a non partisan non loyalist?
You provide several years worth of documentation on this blog that demonstrates that you have repeatedly attacked people on the other side of the debate in a myraid of ways going far beyond calling somebody ‘anti-Calvinist.’ In doing so, how do you escape the charge of being a sociopath non-partisan?
Steven,
ReplyDeleteSince all you've done is to make vague, undocumented allegations, there's nothing for me to demonstrate.
"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.
ReplyDeleteIt’s the Mafia mentality. One standard of la familia, another standard for outsiders."
Sounds like an Oakland Raiders football fan!
"Sounds like a raider fan."
ReplyDeleteYet this in no way describes Steve and the rest of the Triablogers....
# irony.
Steven said:
ReplyDeleteYet this in no way describes Steve and the rest of the Triablogers....
It's obvious Steven hasn't followed Triablogue very carefully if at all.
For example, there was the choc-o-death fiasco of '09 where it came out I like chocolate ice cream while others most decidedly do not. Although I was temporarily banned from Triablogue for my (let's just say) icy attitude toward non-chocoholics, thanks to good commenting and other behavior, I did get eventually get reinstated. However, it still took well over a year for the scars to heal before we could all go to Baskin Robbins again.
And don't even get me started on the time we (and yes it took all of us together) had to put Manata in a choke hold and make him pinky swear he wouldn't beat up the atheists too badly since it became way too embarrassing for the atheists whenever they commented and were decimated by Manata's astute philosophical as well as sheer physical prowess.
Steven,
ReplyDeleteYou were asked to document your charge against Steve. Instead of doing that, you expanded your undocumented accusation to include everybody on the blog's staff.
Even if Steve had been guilty of what you alleged, at least his fault would be accompanied by a lot of good he's done (e.g., see here). You, on the other hand, aren't offering us any such compensation, at least in your recent posts. Instead, you keep posting critical comments about relatively minor issues of a highly personal nature. Maybe you've posted better material in the past. I can't tell, given how common your screen name is. But so far you haven't given us any reason to think that you're any better than an unreasonable critic who has an inordinate concern about minor issues.
Auggybendoggy said: Is there a link where we can read the full discussion?
ReplyDeleteThere will be soon.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear - I am not the one calling people names here. Your response to cathmom5 reflected anti-Catholic bigotry (my point) which is not directly calling YOU a bigot - but that the argument was bigoted. There's a difference.
Second, I fully understand your use of the reductio ad absurdum - and I've merely challenged you to put forth some VALID argumentation, like avoiding the common fallacies of rhetoric (ad hominem especially). One thing to bring to the forefront - IF we were to agree that cathmom5 were wrong (which I do not) then please explain to the few who may still be reading along how "two wrongs make a right?" You justified your argumentation saying, "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." (The tu quoque fallacy).
Both cathmom5 and I explained her statements - you did not deal with these explanations in the least, instead you concentrate on ad hominem (also a fallacy).
I challenged you to present valid documentation of ANY pope who publicly supports or supported NFP and also participated in the lechery you stated they participated in. I would remind the reader too - you went well beyond "motives" - you flatly accused popes of participating in fornicating with nuns and hookers and using NFP to rationalize what they had done. You crossed the line of valid argumentation, and you appear to be in staunch refusal of the error of your ways, not to mention the LACK of "Christian" spirit in your response to cathmom5 (and to me too for that matter).
Now, if you wish to rationalize your argumentation down to reductio ad absurdum - then I am willing to accept what you said was absurd and let it go.
CathApol said:
ReplyDeleteinstead you concentrate on ad hominem (also a fallacy)
BTW, I've already said this to Warren, but it bears repeating to you as well. You'd do well to read Catholic philosopher and logician Peter Geach on ad hominem arguments (e.g. Logic Matters, Reason and Argument). For example:
Ad hominem arguments. This Latin term indicates that these are arguments addressed to a particular man - in fact, the other fellow you are disputing with. You start from something he believes as a premise, and infer a conclusion he won't admit to be true. If you have not been cheating in your reasoning, you will have shown that your opponent’s present body of beliefs is inconsistent and it's up to him to modify it somewhere. This argumentative trick is so unwelcome to the victim that he is likely to regard it as cheating: bad old logic books even speak of the ad hominem fallacy. But an ad hominem argument may be perfectly fair play.
Let us consider a kind of dispute that might easily arise:
A. Foxhunting ought to be abolished; it is cruel to the victim and degrading to the participants.
B. But you eat meat; and I'll bet you've never worried about whether the killing of the animals you eat is cruel to them and degrading to the butchers.
No umpire is entitled at this point to call out "Ad hominem! Foul!" It is true that B's remark does nothing to settle the substantive question of whether foxhunting should be abolished; but then B was not pretending to do this; B was challengingly asking how A could consistently condemn foxhunting without also condemning something A clearly does not wish to condemn. Perhaps A could meet the challenge, perhaps not; anyhow the challenge is a fair one - as we saw, you cannot just brush aside a challenge to your consistency, or say inconsistency doesn't matter.
Ad hominem arguments are not just a way of winning a dispute: a logically sound ad hominem argues does a service, even if an unwelcome one, to its victim - it shows him that his present position is untenable and must be modified. Of course people often do not like to be disturbed in their comfortable inconsistencies; that is why ad hominem arguments have a bad name.
"Second, I fully understand your use of the reductio ad absurdum - and I've merely challenged you to put forth some VALID argumentation, ... Now, if you wish to rationalize your argumentation down to reductio ad absurdum - then I am willing to accept what you said was absurd and let it go."
ReplyDeletea) Reduction to absurdity is a valid argument.
b) Anyone who "fully understands" a reduction to absurdity argument understands that.
c) If it is a reduction to absurdity argument, then it is not a "rationalization" to call it that.
d) "What you say is absurd" is not a complete response to a reduction to absurdity argument.
-TurretinFan
P.S. Trying to distinguish between calling someone a bigot and saying that they are bigoted or that their argument is full of bigortry is supposed to be persuasive to whom exactly?
1. On the one hand, CathApol decries ad hominem. For example, he says stuff like, "Let's be clear - I am not the one calling people names here" and "instead you concentrate on ad hominem (also a fallacy)."
ReplyDeleteBut on the other hand, CathApol uses ad hominem against Steve. For example, he says, "you appear to be in staunch refusal of the error of your ways, not to mention the LACK of 'Christian' spirit in your response to cathmom5 (and to me too for that matter)." CathApol doesn't singularly focus on the argument here, but in addition takes the opportunity attack Steve's character by saying he lacks a "Christian" spirit in his response to cathmom5 and himself.
2. Not to mention cathmom5 herself uses quite a fair amount of ad hominem in her original comment. For instance, she says, "Those 'christians' must find a way to justify their disobedience of God's will by 'taking down' the Church's moral stance--like the bully on the playground making himself feel better by making the others feel bad."
She refers to Protestants like us by placing the term Christians in scare quotes as if to cast doubt on the genuineness of our Christian faith.
Likewise she outright tells us we're attempting to justify our disobedience to God's will.
And she compares us to bullies.
But I don't see CathApol decrying cathmom5's ad hominem in this thread. Which is ironic considering the title and point of this post.
3. Of course, I personally don't think all ad hominem arguments are invalid (e.g. see my previous comment in this thread). But that's obviously not what CathApol thinks!
4. BTW, CathApol said: "I challenged you to present valid documentation of ANY pope who publicly supports or supported NFP and also participated in the lechery you stated they participated in. I would remind the reader too - you went well beyond 'motives' - you flatly accused popes of participating in fornicating with nuns and hookers and using NFP to rationalize what they had done."
However, if the reader reads the original post, they can see CathApol's allegations are quite off the mark. Steve is arguing, if what cathmom5 says about what motivates Protestants is true, then why can't someone else apply the same logic to Catholics and NFP? As such, Steve's post is pegged on cathmom5's comment in order to parallel her argument. So it's not necessarily what Steve himself personally believes.
CathApol said:
ReplyDeleteYour response to cathmom5 reflected anti-Catholic bigotry (my point) which is not directly calling YOU a bigot - but that the argument was bigoted. There's a difference.
CathApol's response to Steve reflects anti-Protestant bigotry (my point) which is not directly calling CathApol a bigot - but that the response is bigoted. There's a difference.
CATHAPOL SAID:
ReplyDelete“Let's be clear - I am not the one calling people names here. Your response to cathmom5 reflected anti-Catholic bigotry (my point) which is not directly calling YOU a bigot - but that the argument was bigoted. There's a difference.”
Indeed, let’s be clear. Cathmom5 is the bigot. She’s the one who imputed evil motives to millions of people she doesn’t know. That’s classic prejudice.
But, of course, you don’t see it that way because you’re a team player. You turn a blind eye when your teammates are caught cheating.
“Second, I fully understand your use of the reductio ad absurdum - and I've merely challenged you to put forth some VALID argumentation, like avoiding the common fallacies of rhetoric (ad hominem especially). One thing to bring to the forefront - IF we were to agree that cathmom5 were wrong (which I do not) then please explain to the few who may still be reading along how ‘two wrongs make a right?’ You justified your argumentation saying, ‘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.’ (The tu quoque fallacy)…”
You keep demonstrating your intellectual incompetence. The tu quoque is not fallacious. Do you think it’s fallacious because you read that on some pop internet source?
The tu quoque is simply a type of argument from analogy. There’s nothing inherently fallacious about an argument from analogy.
Try reading Peter Geach and Douglas Walton on the nature of tu quoque arguments.
“Both cathmom5 and I explained her statements - you did not deal with these explanations in the least, instead you concentrate on ad hominem (also a fallacy).”
I understand that both of your tried to excuse her smear tactics. That’s what team players do: cover for each other.
“You crossed the line of valid argumentation, and you appear to be in staunch refusal of the error of your ways, not to mention the LACK of ‘Christian’ spirit in your response to cathmom5 (and to me too for that matter).”
If cathmom5 defames millions of Protestants, that’s supposedly Christian. You keep illustrating the fact that you’re a blind partisan and blind loyalist.
And I notice, once again, that you don’t demand any “valid documentation” from cathmom5 for impugning the motives of millions of Protestants.
“Now, if you wish to rationalize your argumentation down to reductio ad absurdum - then I am willing to accept what you said was absurd and let it go.”
Yet another example of your intellectual incompetence. You presume to be a Catholic apologist, yet you lack an elementary grasp of basic forms of argument.
A reductio ad absurdum is not an absurd argument. Rather, a reductio ad absurdum demonstrates the absurdity of the position it targets.
It’s a standard, perfectly valid form of argument:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/
I wonder if there is a definable reason that our Catholic friends can't deal with the substance of any given contra-Catholic post.
ReplyDeleteSo far, the general M.O. is to nibble around the edges and try to make mountains out of molehills.
As far as I've seen, the best of the lot is Pete Holter who is willing to deal with some of the substance (even if he does ignore some salient points). He's made his case the best he knows how and leaves the field with respectability.
Others, such as Warren and cathapol, continue to post when they have nothing to add. They misunderstand arguments, misread posts, get called out on it, have a little temper tantrum and then storm off until the next post when they come back and do it all again.
Again, I wonder if there is a definable reason why this is the case?
Let us just pause and thank the Triablogers for showing us a true partisan spirit. Yep, nothing but even handed, level headed non team playing going on here.
ReplyDelete"The team player automatically cheers his own team and automatically jeers the other team"
ReplyDeleteNope. The Triablogers don't do that! The Triablogres NEVER cheer their own team and jeer others. God forbid!
"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."
Nope. The Triablogers don't do that! Hardly! Steve Hays’ name calling, mud slinging is perfect ‘behavior.’
"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."
Nope. Nothing to see here folks. The Triablogers demonstrate with every interaction that they are completely partisan and no matter what: They are not team players. Oh no. The fact that they look like "team players" in the exact way this thread described them is mere coincidence.
Steve Hays et al consistently demonstrate that they are fair partisans in their dealings with others. I mean, it is fine that they pile on insults to pretty much every dissenter who darkens the door but that is OK because, you know, the bible sometimes illustrates hard language.
Steven said:
ReplyDeleteLet us just pause and thank the Triablogers for showing us a true partisan spirit. Yep, nothing but even handed, level headed non team playing going on here.
For one thing, this begs the question that we're using a double standard. Say one of us behaved unethically and another Tblogger (or more) covered for the one who behaved unethically but similarly blasted someone else for behaving the exact same way the original Tblogger (mis)behaved. If something like this has occurred, then why don't you provide documentation?
Steve Hays’ name calling, mud slinging is perfect ‘behavior.’ . . . they pile on insults to pretty much every dissenter who darkens the door but that is OK because, you know, the bible sometimes illustrates hard language.
1. Once again this is a rather tendentious characterization without any supporting documentation whatsoever.
2. Did Steven even bother to read our responses above? If he did, precious little must have sunk in. For example, we cited Catholic logician Peter Geach and referred him to specific books. In fact, we even quoted an argument from Geach for the validity of some ad hominem.
3. It sounds like Steven might be of an altogether different mindset, but I'm more than happy to take biblical ethics for my ethical standard!
"Once again this is a rather tendentious characterization without any supporting documentation whatsoever."
ReplyDeleteI just spit out my coffee. If you need documentation of name calling than maybe you aren't reading the same blog?
It sounds like Steven might be of an altogether different mindset, but I'm more than happy to take biblical ethics for my ethical standard!
Where does the bible provide the ethical framework to call people with a different viewpoints on moral issues unintelligent blunderbusses? Where does the bible say, “When your argument does not work, accuse the other person of not being smart enough to understand it.”
And, maybe I am stupid (I am sure that charge will come eventually so let us get that out of the way) but Geach is not the arbiter of whether or not ad homs are not a fallacy and neither is Geach speaking of the type of ad hom that Steve Hays employs – namely that anybody who does not like his argument is mentally deficient.
But keep it up fellas! You are leaving behind a lot of great material demonstrating the superiority of Calvinism!
And so Steven has taken up the mantel of House Warren and is hard at work trying to derail the discussion and distract away from the fact that neither he nor his contemporaries have addressed any substance of this or any other post.
ReplyDeleteEither Steven has allowed himself to be distracted and a distraction or he prefers it that way.
Patrick.
ReplyDeleteSince you are the resident expert on logical fallacies - perhaps you can demonstrate that what Steve Hays is doing (name calling and calling the other stupid) even qualifies as an ad hominem and not ad hominem fallacious or simply a mere insult - there is a difference.
STEVEN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Geach is not the arbiter of whether or not ad homs are not a fallacy and neither is Geach speaking of the type of ad hom that Steve Hays employs – namely that anybody who does not like his argument is mentally deficient."
i) Since Peter Geach was a professor of logic, he's more the arbiter than Steven or Scott Windsor.
ii) There are several varieties of the ad hominem argument. And I didn't use the tu quoque to evaluate Warren or Scott Windsor. Rather, I used the tu quoque to evaluate their arguments.
iii) For all his faux indignation over tone, notice that he doesn't wax indignant over cathmom's tone.
That's because Steven is just a cheerleader for his team. Break out the pom-poms.
Steven said...
ReplyDelete"Where does the bible provide the ethical framework to call people with a different viewpoints on moral issues unintelligent blunderbusses?"
Of course, that's a demonstrable falsehood. For instance, I've had extensive debates with Jonathan Prejean in the past. But I never said he was unintelligent. To the contrary, I commented on his high intelligence.
"Where does the bible say, 'When your argument does not work, accuse the other person of not being smart enough to understand it.'”
Notice how Steven makes no effort to demonstrate that my argument doesn't work. Steven is just a hothead who indulges in "ad hominem" attacks in the same breath as he deplores ad hominem attacks.
A typecast team-player.
i) Since Peter Geach was a professor of logic, he's more the arbiter than Steven or Scott Windsor.
ReplyDeleteWe could discuss the merits of the ad hom in light of Peter Geach...if you were actually employing an ad hom. But you have not used an ad hom at all.
ii) There are several varieties of the ad hominem argument.
And name calling/asserting the other is stupid is not one of them : )
iii) For all his faux indignation over tone, notice that he doesn't wax indignant over cathmom's tone.
Do you have a problem with her tone? Why?
That's because Steven is just a cheerleader for his team. Break out the pom-poms.
And Mr Fosi, Mathew, Jason et all are not cheerleading for you...got it.
I said: "Where does the bible provide the ethical framework to call people with a different viewpoints on moral issues unintelligent blunderbusses?"
You answered: "Of course, that's a demonstrable falsehood."
Uh, wrong. Remember that thread you created where you called SW a 'blunderbuss?' Yeah. That one. So, it is demonstrable that you do engage in the behavior I've accused you of engaging in. Don't make this so easy.
It matters not that in the history of your conversations you have not resorted to calling the other stupid every single time. If a thief lives on my street and steels from 8 of the 10 houses he cannot say, "I am not a thief because I didn't steal from those two houses!"
"Notice how Steven makes no effort to demonstrate that my argument doesn't work. Steven is just a hothead who indulges in "ad hominem" attacks in the same breath as he deplores ad hominem attacks."
I am not even making an argument. I am just calling a spade a spade. If you talk to your neighbor and he says, ‘Your house is blue’ and it is demonstrable that your house is in fact the color blue, you don’t require an argument from him in the form of a syllogism. Its just simply that you have a blue house.
Kind of like your assertion of the motives of SW, CathMom and me. You aren’t making an argument. You are just making bare assertions about motives and intelligence. You of all people should understand how not to make an argument.
Steven said: I am not even making an argument.
ReplyDeleteHole-in-one. Case closed.
Mr. Fosi wrote, “As far as I've seen, the best of the lot is Pete Holter who is willing to deal with some of the substance (even if he does ignore some salient points). He's made his case the best he knows how and leaves the field with respectability.”
ReplyDeleteGreetings in the LORD, Mr. Fosi!
Thank you for your encouragement. It really is very nice of you. :)
If you have in mind some particular points that you’d like me to come back to, let me know and I’ll do my best to offer my thoughts on the matter. Sometimes we remember that salient points were passed by but can’t remember what those points actually were. So if you can’t remember any in particular, although you do remember that I passed them over, that’s fine.
For the substance of these recent blogs... it seems to me that the issue at hand is whether there were ever any Popes who were advocating both NFP and all of the other evils mentioned, while at the same time rejecting condom use.
Steve wrote, “Well, if that’s what motivates Protestants, then by parity of logic, it just seems to me that the attempt by popes to defend “natural family planning” is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to fornicate with nuns and hookers without wearing a condom or fathering a kid out of wedlock” ( http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/08/lecherous-popes.html).
What Cathmom5 is saying is the same as what Patrick Chan is saying in his post (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/08/flaming-randi.html). If James Randi endorses homosexuality, and proceeds from this position to attack the Christian faith, then we rightly believe that he is suppressing the truth known to him and that his immorality drives his rejection of the faith.
Handing ourselves over to the immoral act blinds us to the immorality of the act and drives us to embrace it and rationalize it as being moral. I don’t think that Steve’s comparison matches with this basic point because Cathmom5’s argument depends on the fact that the Protestant defending contraception is using contraception.
In order for this to be an analogous comparison, these same popes would need to be defending fornication in general, fornication involving the seduction of a virgin pledged to Christ, and fornication involving prostitution all at the same time. Only then would their rejection of condoms come into play as a possible reason why a pope would accept NFP but reject condoms in order to satisfy his lust. The reason why this would be necessary is because, if these other actions were considered by the pope to be immoral, then he would already be willing to openly engage in immoral behavior without rationalization, and would no longer need to devise false doctrine to cover over immoral behavior. But even here, if it were really lust that was driving his endorsement of NFP while rejecting condom use, he would rather be endorsing the pill so that he could have sex without a condom all of the time rather than just during infertile periods. So I would still not see lust as the driving force behind the contrived “doctrine” of rejecting condoms while at the same time embracing NFP, even in this case.
To Protestants and Catholics who are contracepting and who don’t see a moral difference between this and NFP, we invite them to repent: stop contracepting and start practicing NFP for the love of Christ, so that you can immediately experience at least the difference in practice for yourself. Perhaps then you will come to discover the moral difference as well. And we invite condom rejecting, NFP endorsing, fornicating popes to repent as well.
Have fun tearing me to pieces, everyone. But before you do, please keep in mind this most wholesome observation from Augustine:
“Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing” (City of God, Bk. 14, Ch. 24).
Oh wait. That was for something else... ha ha! But isn’t that a great quote? Ha ha! Spread the joy!
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
Mr Fosi -
ReplyDeleteIf I didn't know it was impossible I would think you were merely on Steve's team playing the role of cheerleader. Don't you know, Steve hates that.
Steven said:
ReplyDeletePatrick. Since you are the resident expert on logical fallacies - perhaps you can demonstrate that what Steve Hays is doing (name calling and calling the other stupid) even qualifies as an ad hominem and not ad hominem fallacious or simply a mere insult - there is a difference.
Since you're the one who is alleging Steve is "name calling" and suggesting "name calling" is somehow unethical, then the onus is on you to make good on your allegation. I'm not going to make your argument for you. Why should I be the one who "demonstrate[s]" this for you? That'd be pretty silly now wouldn't it! :-)
We could discuss the merits of the ad hom in light of Peter Geach...if you were actually employing an ad hom. But you have not used an ad hom at all.
If that's the case, then what's your problem?
Ah, wait a sec! You go on to tell us what your problem is. Here's what you say:
I am not even making an argument.
That's true. You've just been emoting this entire time. Thanks for the concession.
As Mr. Fosi said: case closed! :-)
"Since you're the one who is alleging Steve is "name calling" and suggesting "name calling" is somehow unethical, then the onus is on you to make good on your allegation."
ReplyDeleteOh, so what we were all taught in kindergarten was actually wrong. Name calling is not unethical? I sthat the...uh...argument you are taking now Patrick?
"Why should I be the one who "demonstrate[s]" this for you?"
You are confused, I think. I am asking you to demonstrate that Steve Hays even uses the ad hom...I contend that he is not using it. He is just name calling.
Steven said:
ReplyDeleteIf I didn't know it was impossible I would think you were merely on Steve's team playing the role of cheerleader. Don't you know, Steve hates that.
That's cool. If I didn't know better I'd think you weren't making an argument. Oh, wait. You already said you aren't making an argument. I guess everyone should happily ignore everything you say since you aren't really saying anything important. Totally cool with me. :-)
Actually, Steven, I'm irritated by your ignorance. That you choose to try and take the moral high-ground instead of actually dealing with the meat of the TriB beef with RC positions is additionally irritating.
ReplyDeleteTrying to play gotcha! with steve has the sum-total effect of you convincing yourself that you are somehow in the right. As if simply convincing yourself of your ethical superiority is itself an argument against steve's arguments here and in the most recent threads.
There are plenty of substantive posts for you to go after, such as the Aquinas thread that has no comments.
Quit your whining and actually apply yourself.
@Pete: Welcome back. :^) The points I was thinking of reside in the Contraception thread of (what feels like) yesteryear. I didn't mean to impugn you personally, as we all pick and choose the arguments of our opponents that we find most interesting or most vulnerable. If it's all the same to you (and our respective wives), I'm content to let that sleeping dog lay while I work my way through the ante-Nicene fathers.
Once I'm directly familiar with their stances, we can revisit the topic. Fair enough?
STEVEN SAID:
ReplyDelete“I just spit out my coffee.”
Spitting is what you do best.
“Nope. The Triablogers don't do that! The Triablogres NEVER cheer their own team and jeer others. God forbid!”
Notice the blatant equivocation. This is what I said: "The team player automatically cheers his own team and automatically jeers the other team."
Steven substitutes “never” for “automatic,” as if that’s synonymous.
To “automatically” jeer or cheer is hardly equivalent to never jeering or cheering. Rather, that stands in contrast to always doing it, not to never doing it.
But Steven isn’t trying to be honest. In the name of ethical discourse, he engages in unethical discourse.
“The Triablogers demonstrate with every interaction that they are completely partisan and no matter what.”
Demonstrably false. I’ve criticized teammates. Gordon Clark is on my team. So is Vincent Cheung. So is Lee Irons. Fellow Calvinists–one and all.
Yet I’ve criticized their positions on various issues.
“We could discuss the merits of the ad hom in light of Peter Geach...if you were actually employing an ad hom. But you have not used an ad hom at all.”
Aside from the fact that you’re now backpedaling on Geach, your denial is an assertion rather than a counterargument.
“And name calling/asserting the other is stupid is not one of them : )”
Actually, that is one type of ad hominem argument.
“Do you have a problem with her tone? Why?”
Which doesn’t follow from what I said.
“And Mr Fosi, Mathew, Jason et all are not cheerleading for you...got it.”
They argue for their contentions–you simply emote.
“Remember that thread you created where you called SW a 'blunderbuss?'”
And I explained why in considerable detail. You quote the label, but blow past the supporting arguments.
Cont. “So, it is demonstrable that you do engage in the behavior I've accused you of engaging in. Don't make this so easy.”
ReplyDeleteYou misrepresent your own statement. This is what you originally said:
“Where does the bible provide the ethical framework to call people with a different viewpoints on moral issues unintelligent blunderbusses?"
I didn’t call him unintelligent because he has a different viewpoint. So your charge is demonstrably false.
I critique many people whose views differs from mine. But I don’t call them unintelligent because their views differ from mine.
I cited Prejean as one example. I could cite many others. Indeed, this thread began with my post on Pruss, whom I said at the outset was very “astute.”
From time to time I critique something William Lane Craig says. But I’ve never suggested he’s unintelligent.
A while back I wrote a critique of David Lewis’s argument from evil. But I didn’t suggest he was unintelligent. To the contrary, I prefaced my analysis by saying what a brilliant philosopher he was.
I disagree with Lee Irons on some issues. But I haven’t said he’s unintelligent. To the contrary, I’ve commented on his high intelligence. I could run through a long list of counterexamplse to your ignorant accusation.
“I am not even making an argument.”
Indeed, that’s your modus operandi. You don’t make arguments. Instead, you make accusations and assertions. You emote.
“I am just calling a spade a spade.”
Which begs the question.
In the name of ethical discourse you engage in unethical discourse.
But that’s to be expected. You’re a team-player.
Steven said:
ReplyDeleteYou are confused, I think. I am asking you to demonstrate that Steve Hays even uses the ad hom...I contend that he is not using it. He is just name calling.
1. Why are insulting me by calling me confused? By your own standard, that's quite unethical!
2. As I said above, if that's the case, then what's your problem? How is "name calling" without ad hominem "unethical"? Would you say Jesus was "unethical" for "name calling" the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs" then? Your argument (such as it is since you say you're not making an argument) continues on its downward spiral as all conscious signs of intelligence quickly recede into the deepening black.
Mr. Fosi wrote, “I didn't mean to impugn you personally, as we all pick and choose the arguments of our opponents that we find most interesting or most vulnerable. If it's all the same to you (and our respective wives), I'm content to let that sleeping dog lay while I work my way through the ante-Nicene fathers.”
ReplyDeleteThanks. And I didn’t take you to be impugning me, either. Nor impaling me.
Mr. Fosi wrote, “Once I'm directly familiar with their stances, we can revisit the topic. Fair enough?”
Absolutely! I am essentially Augustinian in my personal view. So let me know when you get to the post-Nicene Fathers and I’ll guide you to his pertinent writings on this topic, as much as I know of them. If that sounds helpful to you. I’m at papist dot pete dot for dot Jesus at gmail dot com.
I hope you all have a blessed weekend, everyone!
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
Get ready to fall off your seat: I actually defend Steve Hays in may latest paper at the top of my blog. I agree both that cathmom's initial statement was uncharitable and that the legitimate reductio ad absurdum Steve employed was massively misunderstood.
ReplyDeleteNote also that cathmom is now beginning to issue apologies: something I rarely see in this place when equally or far more offensive rhetoric is employed.
Steve.
ReplyDelete"This is what I said: "The team player automatically cheers his own team and automatically jeers the other team."
Oh, than I missed where you proved your bare assertion that SW automatically jeers the other team.
I sense that you are allowed bare assertions in this forum and note that your team players, er I mean non-partisans, do not demand proofs for your assertions as they do for everybody else. Why not? Why can you make bare assertions that SW ‘automatically’ does something like that?
"Demonstrably false. I’ve criticized teammates."
Cite a single example from the life of Triablogue (with link) where one of your team players argued against your position on a meaningful topic (not whether one likes Chocolate).
"Aside from the fact that you’re now backpedaling on Geach"
Backpedaling? How so?
Actually, that is one type of ad hominem argument.
In a very loose construct - yet this is not the type that Geach is saying is viable. Now who is backpedaling on Geach?
They argue for their contentions–you simply emote.
Another bare assertion on your part. Why aren't your team players calling you to task to prove it I wonder?
I didn’t call him unintelligent because he has a different viewpoint.
You call him unintelligent because you cannot cope with his argument without calling him stupid - like you do with many people whose arguments you cannot defeat whether Catholic, non-Calvinist or other. You are KNOWN for this, Steve. It is not just me. Just google your name and see what you find. Your reputation is to spew invective, vitriol and name calling when you can’t win.
STEVEN SAID:
ReplyDelete"You call him unintelligent because you cannot cope with his argument without calling him stupid - like you do with many people whose arguments you cannot defeat whether Catholic, non-Calvinist or other."
Another one of your assertions in search of an argument. In the name of ethical discourse, you repeatedly resort to unethical discourse.
You're too dishonest to recognize how dishonest you are–which is just what we'd expect from a blind loyalist. Thanks for constantly corroborating my allegations by your own conduct.
Thankfully there is already a flow chart for dialog on the Triablogue...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.indeathorlife.org/fun/tria_flowchart.php
Man, I wish I knew this already existed, I could have saved some time.
They need to add a 'call your opponent stupid' box and a 'make bare assertions' box.
Steven said:
ReplyDeleteThankfully there is already a flow chart for dialog on the Triablogue...
Hey, that's funny! Coincidentally, I too found a flow chart for dialogue with Catholics, albeit on a different topic: contraception.
What's more, I found a flow chart for dialogue with Catholics on Catholic doctrine.
Not that I care about these flow charts in any way, let alone lend them significant credibility, but you might care. If so, I guess Christmas came early this year for you, Steven!
STEVEN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Thankfully there is already a flow chart for dialog on the Triablogue..."
Ah, yes, making a militant Arminian the umpire.
"Ah, yes, making a militant Arminian the umpire.
ReplyDelete"
Now THAT is an ad hominem.
Steven said:
ReplyDeleteNow THAT is an ad hominem.
1. No, it's an apt description.
2. However, going by your words, we could respond in the same way you responded when you yourself claimed above there's a distinction between ad hominem and insults.
3. Besides, as pointed out above, sometimes ad hominem is perfectly fair play.
4. Moreover you yourself engage in ad hominem arguments in this very thread. So at best it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
"No, it's an apt description"
ReplyDeleteThat is a bare assertion.
Sean Patrick said:
ReplyDeleteThat is a bare assertion.
Your statement that it's a bare assertion is a bare assertion.
Sean Patrick? I meant "Steven."
ReplyDeleteNote that cathmom has now issued two apologies. These ought to be (happily and charitably) acknowledged here:
ReplyDeleteIn your first message (Aug 12: 8:56AM) you disagreed with my using "Christian" in quotes. I honestly wasn't trying to insult all Protestant Christians. . . . if putting "Christian" in quotes was lacking in charity that is my fault, and I have and do apologize. (8-12-11, 2:46 PM, ET at CathApol)
Thanks Dave. I wrote those comments before I read yours in the other comment box. If I had read your comments first, I would not have written that. I am suitably humbled by your words and would appreciate being able to bow out gracefully from the conversation. I will not be participating in the discussion anymore. My humble apologies to any and all Christians who felt insulted by my words. (8-12-11, 4:42 PM ET)
This demonstrates a number of things:
1) cathmom was humble and classy enough to issue these apologies and cease contending the point. Your responsibility now is to graciously accept her apology and drop the complaint.
2) I seem to have been the primary agent in persuading her that she was wrong in her language, which means that:
A) I was not acting as a "team player" and overlooking all fault on the catholic "side" simply because these are fellow Catholics (one of your major complaints, and a legitimate one).
B) I publicly disagreed with both a fellow Catholic apologist (Scott) and a woman who lists my blog as one that she regularly reads, and agreed with some of my most severe critics online, simply because they made some valid points. Truth is truth. A=a.
C) Scott graciously allowed my critiques (partially against himself) to be posted on his blog.
D) Catholics are classy enough to publicly retract and apologize when it is necessary, and this was a result of "internal policing." These are characteristics I scarcely ever observe on anti-Catholic Protestant blogs.
E) Now that I have given cathmom and Scott a hard time, in love (and have succeeded in persuading her of my position), I shall be observing how you guys respond, and give you a hard time if it is called for, and document how you now act. cathmom has acted in true Christian fashion in this instance, and I greatly admire that. Now we shall observe how Christianly y'all react. And it will be documented on my paper about all of it, just as the errors of our side were documented. Goose and gander . . .
PATRICK CHAN SAID:
ReplyDelete>> CathApol said:
>> Your response to cathmom5
>> reflected anti-Catholic bigotry
>> (my point) which is not
>> directly calling YOU a bigot -
>> but that the argument was
>> bigoted. There's a difference.
>
> CathApol's response to Steve
> reflects anti-Protestant bigotry
> (my point) which is not directly
> calling CathApol a bigot - but
> that the response is bigoted.
> There's a difference.
Patrick, I respect your right to your opinion. I accept that you're not directly calling me a bigot here, but that you believe the argumentation I used was bigoted.
OTOH, Mr. Hays directly ascribes derogatory comments to others...
"sociopathic partisan"
"loyalist" (I'll accept that badge with honor, BTW - but it's still ad hominem)
"cathmom5 is the bigot"
"your intellectual incompetence"
"you're a blind partisan and blind loyalist"
Steve said: A reductio ad absurdum is not an absurd argument. Rather, a reductio ad absurdum demonstrates the absurdity of the position it targets.
I know what the reductio ad absurdum argument is - but you used red herring absurdity - so I have accepted that your argumentation IS absurd and missed the point entirely.
Scott<<<
Juan Julio -
ReplyDeleteThat is a bare assertion.
I mean Patrick Chan.
It's now past six hours since I documented how cathmom had apologized, and still no acceptance of it here, in Christian charity. Why should it take so long? Is it not part of Reformed Christianity to accept and acknowledge a heartfelt apology when it is offered? It was certainly part of my evangelical Christianity . . .
ReplyDeleteOn my blog she even said she went to confession over it, so obviously she is sincere in intent. Or is that what you deny? Otherwise, why the great gap in response?
I'm all about accepting sincere apologies... But was that the point of the post?
ReplyDeleteI thought only priests could provide absolution.
Great Mr. Fosi. Why don't you urge Steve, then, to be a Christian gentleman and acknowledge an apology? Not all forgiveness involves absolution, in case you weren't aware of that.
ReplyDeleteCatholics say "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" to other human beings, just like everyone else (!). It's Christianity 0101, but it seems to be such an advanced Christianity for Steve, that he doesn't grasp it. It's too much fun running down Catholics, to pause and say "I accept your apology." Pretty novel and bizarre stuff, huh Steve?
Hi everyone!
ReplyDeleteHere’s a recent article on the topic that you all might like to consider: http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/nfp-a-challenge-to-married-couples.html
And a note to James Randi: if you ever read this blog entry, please know that I love you and I hope you’ll come to know Jesus Christ as your Divine Savior. NFP helps guide husbands and wives down the path of celibacy, to which you are also called as someone with homosexual desire. I hope to meet you on this road of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom, and to experience the love of God together.
Hi, Dave Armstrong!
Thank you for your work in the Lord’s field. :)
With love in Christ,
Pete
All glory to God for His grace, Pete, but thanks for your kind words.
ReplyDeleteNew thread here.
ReplyDelete