But it is because so many conservative RCs hold to the classic RC doctrine that all outside Rome are as Hell bound pagans (or as just yesterday when one affirmed we were dead if we did not believe in the Real Presence) then provokes refutation AKA flame baiting. Which for so many RC devotees is anything that impugns their church.
While refutation was too often, it should not be banned. And if it is then it needs to be defined. I think a quota system of two per week would be more reasonable.
I don’t see refutation as bashing as long as it doesn’t become so. For example, Yes there are Catholics who still hold with the belief that those outside the faith are damned. That belief is not the current understanding of the Church on the teaching of “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”. So to challenge that and defend yourself against being told you will go to Hell by appealing to the Church’s own teaching and what you believe about Hell is a valid answer. Even bringing up that there are religions that believe Catholics are going to Hell would certainly make a point about legitimate differences. If the refutation consists of claiming Catholics are the ones going to Hell because they don’t believe in the Bible or because they worship the Pope then I think that would be bashing.
Our agreements as well as disagreements should be based on facts. When some things are misunderstood a correction should not be seen as an attack. When some things are corrected again and again yet still people remain obstinate in believing lies that is when you get bashing.