tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1786450363435001486..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Team playersRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4546374120170520252011-08-13T15:59:28.504-04:002011-08-13T15:59:28.504-04:00New thread here.New thread <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/08/ambulance-chasers.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90815932924089729922011-08-13T14:43:19.573-04:002011-08-13T14:43:19.573-04:00All glory to God for His grace, Pete, but thanks f...All glory to God for His grace, Pete, but thanks for your kind words.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87592849367991069952011-08-13T14:15:57.627-04:002011-08-13T14:15:57.627-04:00Hi everyone!
Here’s a recent article on the topic...Hi everyone!<br /><br />Here’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<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Hi, Dave Armstrong!<br /><br />Thank you for your work in the Lord’s field. :)<br /><br />With love in Christ,<br />PetePete Holterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01206812695011729322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24749741728746145922011-08-13T11:07:25.685-04:002011-08-13T11:07:25.685-04:00Great Mr. Fosi. Why don't you urge Steve, then...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. <br /><br />Catholics 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?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56491999517703549642011-08-13T10:50:29.800-04:002011-08-13T10:50:29.800-04:00I'm all about accepting sincere apologies... B...I'm all about accepting sincere apologies... But was that the point of the post?<br /><br />I thought only priests could provide absolution.Mr. Fosihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17652392944938128012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36634465985363362362011-08-13T00:14:14.407-04:002011-08-13T00:14:14.407-04:00It's now past six hours since I documented how...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 <i>my</i> evangelical Christianity . . . <br /><br />On 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?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89161783911271972382011-08-12T21:00:57.777-04:002011-08-12T21:00:57.777-04:00Juan Julio -
That is a bare assertion.
I mean Pa...Juan Julio -<br /><br />That is a bare assertion.<br /><br />I mean Patrick Chan.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104684335416465103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83035418027204595262011-08-12T20:56:50.538-04:002011-08-12T20:56:50.538-04:00PATRICK CHAN SAID:
>> CathApol said:
>>...PATRICK CHAN SAID:<br />>> CathApol said:<br />>> Your response to cathmom5 <br />>> reflected anti-Catholic bigotry <br />>> (my point) which is not <br />>> directly calling YOU a bigot - <br />>> but that the argument was <br />>> bigoted. There's a difference.<br />><br />> CathApol's response to Steve <br />> reflects anti-Protestant bigotry <br />> (my point) which is not directly <br />> calling CathApol a bigot - but <br />> that the response is bigoted. <br />> There's a difference.<br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />OTOH, Mr. Hays directly ascribes derogatory comments to others...<br /> <br />"sociopathic partisan"<br />"loyalist" (I'll accept that badge with honor, BTW - but it's still ad hominem)<br />"cathmom5 is the bigot"<br />"your intellectual incompetence"<br />"you're a blind partisan and blind loyalist"<br /> <br />Steve said: <i>A reductio ad absurdum is not an absurd argument. Rather, a reductio ad absurdum demonstrates the absurdity of the position it targets.</i><br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />Scott<<<CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762504684024359557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23162525229552332942011-08-12T17:33:49.820-04:002011-08-12T17:33:49.820-04:00Note that cathmom has now issued two apologies. Th...Note that cathmom has now issued two apologies. These ought to be (happily and charitably) acknowledged here:<br /><br /><i>In 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.</i> (8-12-11, 2:46 PM, ET at CathApol)<br /><br /><i>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.</i> (8-12-11, 4:42 PM ET) <br /><br />This demonstrates a number of things:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />2) I seem to have been the primary agent in persuading her that she was wrong in her language, which means that:<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />C) Scott graciously allowed my critiques (partially against himself) to be posted on his blog.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <i>you guys</i> respond, and give <i>you</i> a hard time if it is called for, and document how <i>you</i> 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 . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75309528258687409952011-08-12T17:14:57.081-04:002011-08-12T17:14:57.081-04:00Sean Patrick? I meant "Steven."Sean Patrick? I meant "Steven."Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28833132171260472011-08-12T17:13:52.739-04:002011-08-12T17:13:52.739-04:00Sean Patrick said:
That is a bare assertion.
You...Sean Patrick said:<br /><br /><b>That is a bare assertion.</b><br /><br />Your statement that it's a bare assertion is a bare assertion.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79506478061991253572011-08-12T17:12:48.918-04:002011-08-12T17:12:48.918-04:00"No, it's an apt description"
That ...<i>"No, it's an apt description</i>"<br /><br />That is a bare assertion.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104684335416465103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82511149369407707842011-08-12T16:57:39.609-04:002011-08-12T16:57:39.609-04:00Steven said:
Now THAT is an ad hominem.
1. No, i...Steven said:<br /><br /><b>Now THAT is an ad hominem.</b><br /><br />1. No, it's an apt description. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />3. Besides, as pointed out above, sometimes ad hominem is perfectly fair play.<br /><br />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.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46922324933784706352011-08-12T16:45:32.581-04:002011-08-12T16:45:32.581-04:00"Ah, yes, making a militant Arminian the umpi...<i>"Ah, yes, making a militant Arminian the umpire.<br /></i>"<br /><br />Now THAT is an ad hominem.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104684335416465103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10666386764244063902011-08-12T16:42:29.326-04:002011-08-12T16:42:29.326-04:00STEVEN SAID:
"Thankfully there is already a ...STEVEN SAID:<br /><br />"Thankfully there is already a flow chart for dialog on the Triablogue..."<br /><br />Ah, yes, making a militant Arminian the umpire.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63262388799103491262011-08-12T16:40:09.102-04:002011-08-12T16:40:09.102-04:00Steven said:
Thankfully there is already a flow c...Steven said:<br /><br /><b>Thankfully there is already a flow chart for dialog on the Triablogue...</b><br /><br />Hey, that's funny! Coincidentally, I too found a flow chart for dialogue with Catholics, albeit on a different topic: <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xiG72zQ4gs8/TkWNJB6YaqI/AAAAAAAABtw/UJJgvp1HUoI/s1600/catholicflow.gif" rel="nofollow">contraception</a>.<br /><br />What's more, I found a flow chart for dialogue with Catholics on <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CpaX3jzyv0s/TkWM35vpHuI/AAAAAAAABto/VhmM8KP0pP0/s1600/catholic_doctrine.jpg" rel="nofollow">Catholic doctrine</a>. <br /><br />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!Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88106815628137413172011-08-12T16:19:28.955-04:002011-08-12T16:19:28.955-04:00Thankfully there is already a flow chart for dialo...Thankfully there is already a flow chart for dialog on the Triablogue...<br /><br />http://www.indeathorlife.org/fun/tria_flowchart.php<br /><br />Man, I wish I knew this already existed, I could have saved some time. <br /><br />They need to add a 'call your opponent stupid' box and a 'make bare assertions' box.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104684335416465103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73482019897432437112011-08-12T16:10:22.810-04:002011-08-12T16:10:22.810-04:00STEVEN SAID:
"You call him unintelligent bec...STEVEN SAID:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Another one of your assertions in search of an argument. In the name of ethical discourse, you repeatedly resort to unethical discourse. <br /><br />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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15823427204042470362011-08-12T15:57:32.877-04:002011-08-12T15:57:32.877-04:00Steve.
"This is what I said: "The team ...Steve.<br /><br /><i>"This is what I said: "The team player automatically cheers his own team and automatically jeers the other team."</i><br /><br />Oh, than I missed where you proved your bare assertion that SW <b>automatically</b> jeers the other team. <br /><br />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?<br /><br /><i>"Demonstrably false. I’ve criticized teammates.</i>"<br /><br />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). <br /><br /><i>"Aside from the fact that you’re now backpedaling on Geach"</i><br /><br />Backpedaling? How so? <br /><br /><i>Actually, that is one type of ad hominem argument</i>.<br /><br />In a very loose construct - yet this is not the type that Geach is saying is viable. Now who is backpedaling on Geach?<br /><br /><i>They argue for their contentions–you simply emote.<br /></i><br /><br />Another bare assertion on your part. Why aren't your team players calling you to task to prove it I wonder?<br /><br /><i>I didn’t call him unintelligent because he has a different viewpoint.</i><br /><br />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.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104684335416465103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60192968644358302072011-08-12T15:51:40.274-04:002011-08-12T15:51:40.274-04:00Get ready to fall off your seat: I actually defend...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 <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> Steve employed was massively misunderstood.<br /><br />Note 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.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61556494589401025512011-08-12T13:30:05.376-04:002011-08-12T13:30:05.376-04:00Mr. Fosi wrote, “I didn't mean to impugn you p...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.”<br /><br />Thanks. And I didn’t take you to be impugning me, either. Nor impaling me.<br /><br /><br />Mr. Fosi wrote, “Once I'm directly familiar with their stances, we can revisit the topic. Fair enough?”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I hope you all have a blessed weekend, everyone!<br /><br />With love in Christ,<br />Pete HolterPete Holterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01206812695011729322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2883620462532370952011-08-12T13:19:16.927-04:002011-08-12T13:19:16.927-04:00Steven said:
You are confused, I think. I am aski...Steven said:<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br />1. Why are insulting me by calling me confused? By your own standard, that's quite unethical!<br /><br />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.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88632350043823894442011-08-12T12:46:17.291-04:002011-08-12T12:46:17.291-04:00Cont. “So, it is demonstrable that you do engage i...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.”<br /><br />You misrepresent your own statement. This is what you originally said:<br /><br />“Where does the bible provide the ethical framework to call people with a different viewpoints on moral issues unintelligent blunderbusses?"<br /><br />I didn’t call him unintelligent because he has a different viewpoint. So your charge is demonstrably false.<br /><br />I critique many people whose views differs from mine. But I don’t call them unintelligent because their views differ from mine.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />From time to time I critique something William Lane Craig says. But I’ve never suggested he’s unintelligent.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“I am not even making an argument.”<br /><br />Indeed, that’s your modus operandi. You don’t make arguments. Instead, you make accusations and assertions. You emote.<br /><br />“I am just calling a spade a spade.”<br /><br />Which begs the question.<br /><br />In the name of ethical discourse you engage in unethical discourse. <br /><br />But that’s to be expected. You’re a team-player.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63120310884502949132011-08-12T12:45:46.789-04:002011-08-12T12:45:46.789-04:00STEVEN SAID:
“I just spit out my coffee.”
Spitti...STEVEN SAID:<br /><br />“I just spit out my coffee.”<br /><br />Spitting is what you do best.<br /><br />“Nope. The Triablogers don't do that! The Triablogres NEVER cheer their own team and jeer others. God forbid!”<br /><br />Notice the blatant equivocation. This is what I said: "The team player automatically cheers his own team and automatically jeers the other team."<br /><br />Steven substitutes “never” for “automatic,” as if that’s synonymous. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />But Steven isn’t trying to be honest. In the name of ethical discourse, he engages in unethical discourse. <br /><br />“The Triablogers demonstrate with every interaction that they are completely partisan and no matter what.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Yet I’ve criticized their positions on various issues.<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />Aside from the fact that you’re now backpedaling on Geach, your denial is an assertion rather than a counterargument.<br /><br />“And name calling/asserting the other is stupid is not one of them : )”<br /><br />Actually, that is one type of ad hominem argument.<br /><br />“Do you have a problem with her tone? Why?”<br /><br />Which doesn’t follow from what I said.<br /><br />“And Mr Fosi, Mathew, Jason et all are not cheerleading for you...got it.”<br /><br />They argue for their contentions–you simply emote.<br /><br />“Remember that thread you created where you called SW a 'blunderbuss?'”<br /><br />And I explained why in considerable detail. You quote the label, but blow past the supporting arguments.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88997346864190560842011-08-12T12:40:57.243-04:002011-08-12T12:40:57.243-04:00Actually, Steven, I'm irritated by your ignora...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.<br /><br />Trying 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.<br /><br />There are plenty of substantive posts for you to go after, such as the Aquinas thread that has no comments.<br /><br />Quit your whining and actually apply yourself. <br /><br /><b>@Pete:</b> 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.<br /><br />Once I'm directly familiar with their stances, we can revisit the topic. Fair enough?Mr. Fosihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17652392944938128012noreply@blogger.com