Author Topic: Rome's jurisdiction over Eastern Catholics  (Read 4338 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,536
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: Rome's jurisdiction over Eastern Catholics
« Reply #90 on: February 09, 2012, 08:02:32 PM »
I have no idea what you're even prattling on about anymore, but I do take exception to being accused of delving into ad hominem. 

Quote
If you can't handle the fallout of your own arrogant postings, don't blame me.

A post can be arrogant, angry, petulant, sycophantic, cute or many other things and still be 100% factually/logically correct, 0% factually/logically correct, or anywhere in between. Your post does not address whether what I said was true or untrue, reasonable or reasonable. It focuses only on (your perception of) the attitude with which I post. This is the essence of ad hominem.

(Pardon me for calling a spade a spade).

Whatever.  If you really think so, report it to the mods.

Otherwise you're engaging in "ad hominem," too.

Put your money where your fingers are.
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,198
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Rome's jurisdiction over Eastern Catholics
« Reply #91 on: February 10, 2012, 10:21:12 AM »
I was in the middle of writing a rather lengthy response in defense of Schultz regarding the 'ad hominem' charge levied against him since it was my initial comment to witega which apparently set the thread on a downward spiral. However, I accidentally closed the window and 'poof' - my 'superbly written treatise' was lost in cyber-space. Perhaps it is for the best!

Seriously, I don't see any statement made by Schultz which falls into any of the commonly accepted forms of a true 'ad hominem' attack. In my estimation, there is nothing directly related to witega's initial point in Schultz' posts which appears to be abusive, circumstantial, 'tu quoque' or guilt by association with respect to any underlying point witega may have made or in an effort to undermine any assertion he may have made therein.

Without addressing the validity of any point made by witega I observed that life is not an ongoing debate and all discussions are not 'scored' according to debate rules. Schultz merely followed up.

Certainly controlling the discussion is an important rhetorical tool in any discussion, not just within a formal debate (as a PK and an attorney, I learned that 'tactic' early on.) However, not every discussion should be viewed as a 'debate.' (I would go so far as to say that being "arrogant, angry, petulant, sycophantic (or) cute" rarely carries the day - unless you are engaged in an election year 'debate' on television.)

So perhaps we are just parsing words rather than fundamentally disagreeing about the initial assertion.

Our mods wisely named these threads 'discussion' fora - not 'debate' fora.

From time to time all of us have been guilty of being "arrogant, angry, petulant, sycophantic (or) cute" when making a point either in the course of life or certainly online. To be called out on that in the setting of a Christian forum hardly seems to be something to get passionately worked up about. Yes, St. Nicholas "got worked up" in Nicea, but those circumstances don't give all of us a 'carte blanche' in every conversation or discussion in which we are engaged. Not everyone with whom you disagree is Arius.