5 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis entire site is an embarrassing collage of Catholic propaganda.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2003/feature1.htm
Another Reckoning.
A Response to Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s A Moral Reckoning:
The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust
and its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair.
By Ronald J. Rychlak
http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2003/feature1.htm
It seems devoted to putting some of the church's more shameful acts "in context." In addition to this one on the Holocaust, there is the one you cited on the Spanish Inquisition actually benefitting Europe because the "secular persecution of heretics," whatever that might mean, was even worse. And I love this headline:
"A Necessary Bondage? When The Church Endorsed Slavery. T. David Curp looks at a dark period in church history and explains the context around it."
The "12 Myths" are rather amusing as well, both in their presence at the forefront of this source and in their content. I particularly like myths 2, 3, 6, 8, and all of them, I guess, when put "in the context" of calling them myths that this site can supposedly debunk.
Crisis Magazine is an embarrassment and is only going to be a disservice if you attempt to use it to persuade others.
3 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'll use another site. The site is not what I want to discuss.
This entire site is an embarrassing collage of Catholic propaganda.
It seems devoted to putting some of the church's more shameful acts "in context." In addition to this one on the Holocaust, there is the one you cited on the Spanish Inquisition actually benefitting Europe because the "secular persecution of heretics," whatever that might me ...[text shortened]... embarrassment and is only going to be a disservice if you attempt to use it to persuade others.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0015.html
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou've got to be kidding. That one is even worse, although both sites share a lot of content. Here are the same myths from the other site:
I'll use another site. The site is not the subject I want to discuss.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0015.html
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0140.html
A quick glance at the content under this site's Core Subjects and Current Issues reveals that it is Catholic propaganda.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/
I particularly like the Facts and Misconceptions page.
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLook at the presented facts in the article. You are poisoning the well.
You've got to be kidding. That one is even worse, although both sites share a lot of content. Here are the same myths from the other site:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0140.html
.... and trying to change the subject.
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribbleshttp://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0015.html
They are hare to find, like needles in a haystack of rhetoric of this sort:
"In today’s culture of death where the term 'civilization' can only be used loosely, the Church’s civilizing mission is as important today as it ever was."
Are you quoting from the above article ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm quoting from the response to Myth 6.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0015.html
Are you quoting from the above article ?
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0140.html
You may consider this a form of argument against the cited article if you wish, as I am engaging in demonstrating that it is not a credible source of fact.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesRed herrings.
I'm quoting from the response to Myth 6.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0140.html
You may consider this a form of argument against the cited article if you wish, as I am engaging in demonstrating that it is not a credible source of fact.
I want to discuss the Rychlak article.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0015.html
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles[/b]Dr.S: "You may consider this a form of argument against the cited article if you wish, as I am engaging in demonstrating that it is not a credible source of fact.[/b]
I'm quoting from the response to Myth 6.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0140.html
You may consider this a form of argument against the cited article if you wish, as I am engaging in demonstrating that it is not a credible source of fact.
The fallacy of poisoning the well.
The fallacy of changing the subject
The fallacy called Red herring.
Please stop hijacking this thread.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy don't you summarize the points for us then.
Red herrings.
I want to discuss the Rychlak article.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0015.html
It's a long article which would probably take me an hour to read. I'm not going to waste my time if its content is similar to the shorter articles on the site that I have read and deemed to be worthless. I have no reason to think that this particular article won't also consist primarily of propaganda when the other articles on the site do.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI hereby introduce a new logical fallacy: Argumentum Ad Ivanhoe.
Dr.S: "You may consider this a form of argument against the cited article if you wish, as I am engaging in demonstrating that it is not a credible source of fact.[/b]
The fallacy of poisoning the well.
The fallacy of changing the subject
The fallacy called Red herring.[/b]
The fallacy consists of any rational person attempting to engage Ivanhoe in any sort of logical discussion, since the exercise is doomed to failure.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIf you do not wish to waste your time reading the article from a serious scholar trying to find out the truth, because you apparently have made up your mind about this issue, then this is all right by me, but don't go asking me to summarise an article you already have categorised as "propaganda" without checking out the content and the facts it presents.
Why don't you summarize the points for us then.
It's a long article which would probably take me an hour to read. I'm not going to waste my time if its content is similar to the shorter articles on the site that I have read and deemed to be worthless. I have no reason to think that this particular article won't also consist primarily of propaganda when the other articles on the site do.
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesGoogle on "Goldhagen v. Pius XII RONALD J. RYCHLAK "
I hereby introduce a new logical fallacy: Argumentum Ad Ivanhoe.
The fallacy consists of any rational person attempting to engage Ivanhoe in any sort of logical discussion, since the exercise is doomed to failure.
... and you will see this is a well known article.
This is the man we are talking about.
http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/law_school/faculty_rychlak.html
Please, stop hijacking this thread.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou dang thread hijacker, you ought to be ...umm ,,,well,,,congratulated for your perserverence.
I hereby introduce a new logical fallacy: Argumentum Ad Ivanhoe.
The fallacy consists of any rational person attempting to engage Ivanhoe in any sort of logical discussion, since the exercise is doomed to failure.