Catholics hear the same tired and ignorant complaints over and over. If you’re like me and tend to go ballistic, avoid those threads. These threads are generally an intellectual exercise in futility, between brick walls with no resolution to their differences. %;?D)"
With all due respect, I believe you should go back and re-read my post. I am one of those "...Calvinist bullies" who regularly rebuts the utterly demonic misinformation spread by the Romanists. The perspicuity of the Scriptures is unavoidable...Rome has overlain the pure truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with false human tradition, myths, superstitions and darkness from the pit.
Yes, and you have proved my point, and since I go ballistic with the calvinist kamikaze evangelization methods, coupled with their colossal ignorance (fear of all things pre-circa 2012), I know any discussion will prove to be out of the question.
This means I am unable to enjoin the regurgitated food fight. Dang it. Let the jolly blood letting begin at Christmas time, between those with the stomach for it and relish it.
This thread and the blog cited is about Orthodox Christianity. Do you have anything to add to that discussion?
glad I’m still on your ping list. Aloha and Merry Christmas
One man’s bully is another man’s brilliant apologist. ;o)
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.
_____________________________
Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."
During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."
After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."
_____________________________
Examples of Poisoning the Well
"Don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel."
"Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart."
You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend's boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him, everything you hear him say is tainted.
And of course: I believe the poster may intend to ignore the Calvinist bullies, who regularly bait Catholic FReepers into title posts for discussion, overwhelm them with overlong material, and then use that as an excuse to practice their snark lines, to insult Mary, the Holy Father, and generally dash any hope for a discussion.