Sunday, August 07, 2011

The no-true-Roman fallacy

The Latest Hays tactic / ruse, is to cynically try to turn my words back upon me.

Ah, yes. It’s “cynical,” nay, a “cynical ruse” (twice as bad!) to hold a man to his own words.

I’m not perfect. I can admit when I am wrong; I have no problem with that.

That would be a mighty long list. I don’t know if his blog has the bandwidth to accommodate the sheer volume of necessary retractions. But better late than never. I look forward to the installments.

On second thought, wouldn’t it be more efficient if he just deleted his blog?

This is not rocket science, folks.  At that time, I had not looked into D'Souza's Catholicism in any depth. I understood that he was a Catholic (and that was all that was relevant to my particular argument in that paper). I didn't know that he was not actually a "devout" one, and so that constituted my momentous, earth-shaking mistake (an unverified description).

Translation: D’Souza was a real, honest-ta-goodness Catholic as long as he was a feather in our cap, but when he defected, he retroactively ceased to have ever been a real, honest-ta-goodness Catholic. Kinda like the Grandfather paradox. 


  1. Doesn't DA's defense amount to the necessity of the laity to assess other layman before they can either attest to or deny the orthodoxy (or lack thereof) of said laymen?

    Inquisition anyone?

  2. Private, individual interpretation, anyone?