Religion
Related: About this forumStop Applauding the Pope: A Word on the Misguided Praise from Progressives
Last edited Sat Aug 29, 2015, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)
By some sorcery of PR, the Catholic Church has convinced a frightening number of progressives, humanists, and otherwise rational thinkers that Francis is one of their ownbut this is a man who rejects gay marriage in fear of its potential to destroy the traditional family; a man who passionately supports, on theological grounds, and much like his predecessors, an international prohibition on birth control, even in poor and AIDS-ravaged countries; a man who has compared transgender people to nuclear weapons in their ability to wreak havoc on the natural order of creation; and a man who, in response to the Charlie Hebdo attack, victim-blamed the dead writers with the suggestion that free speech must end where criticism of religion begins. He is a man who, in the tradition of all popes before him, and through either indifference or intention, continues to incubate the epidemic of pedophilia that so plagues the ranks of his subordinates. Ill say it again: Pope Francis is not a good person.
<snip>
I find it difficult to disagree.
This board is supposed to be full of progressive Liberals - what's your reaction to this?
The rest:
http://thehumanist.com/commentary/stop-applauding-the-pope-a-word-on-the-misguided-praise-from-progressives
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)uriel1972
(4,261 posts)One day, in several thousand years the RCC may enter the 20th century, at this rate.
rug
(82,333 posts)nichomachus
(12,754 posts)How very Catholic of you.
rug
(82,333 posts)As to this, "How very Catholic of you.", you hit the trifecta: personal attack, sweeping generalization (dicto simpliciter), and rank bullshit, all in one.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,262 posts)Your reasoning contains this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself.
Example:
What she says about Johannes Kepler's astronomy of the 1600s must be just so much garbage. Do you realize she's only fifteen years old?
This attack may undermine the arguer's credibility as a scientific authority, but it does not undermine her reasoning itself because her age is irrelevant to quality of the reasoning. That reasoning should stand or fall on the scientific evidence, not on the arguer's age or anything else about her personally. Reasoning that has the ad hominem form is not always fallacious, if the form is: "The reasoner said X, but the reasoner has unacceptable trait T, so X is not acceptable." The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning of this form as an ad hominem fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is relevant or irrelevant. For example, attacks on a person for their actually immoral sexual conduct are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning, but they are relevant to arguments promoting the person for a leadership position in a church.
If the fallacious reasoner points out irrelevant circumstances that the reasoner is in, such as the arguer's having a vested interesting in people accepting the position, then the ad hominem fallacy may be called a Circumstantial Ad Hominem. If the fallacious attack is on the arguer's associates, or ability or background or personal character it may be called an Abusive Ad Hominem, although the attack on the arguer's associates is more commonly called Guilt by Association. If the fallacy is due to the origin of the arguer's views it is a kind of Genetic Fallacy. If the fallacy is due to claiming the person does not practice what is preached, it is the Tu Quoque Fallacy. Two Wrongs Make a Right is also another type of ad hominem fallacy.
...
Genetic
A critic uses the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant.
Example:
Whatever your reasons are for buying that DVD they've got to be ridiculous. You said yourself that you got the idea for buying it from last night's fortune cookie. Cookies can't think!
Fortune cookies are not reliable sources of information about what DVD to buy, but the reasons the person is willing to give are likely to be quite relevant and should be listened to. The speaker is using the genetic fallacy by paying too much attention to the genesis of the idea rather than to the reasons offered for it. An ad hominem fallacy is one kind of genetic fallacy, but the genetic fallacy in our passage isn't an ad hominem.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
And his education, which you didn't talk about, is relevant for this topic:
rug
(82,333 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)and not have a discussion, you could at least be bigger dick about it. Sure, going after the fact that that the writer is an intern is a pretty dickishly condescending thing to do, but if you're going ad hom, you might as well go whole hog, it's not like you're trying to convince anyone anyways, much less discuss any inconvenient points.
You posted his picture, and that's a good start to ad hominem attacks. Good, good. Make it about the person, not about the issue. No discussion. You couldn't have thrown some common caricature in there? Maybe call him a neckbeard? Afraid of getting alerted on? That's a shame, damned discussion boards, what with trying to encourage discussion.
rug
(82,333 posts)Frankly, mellow, I find complaints from you about condescension to be ironic.
His picture, which upsets you, is from the link, as is his bio.
And this, "Make it about the person, not about the issue" from you, while calling me a dick, is low grade hypocrisy.
If you want a discussion, put down the posturing and gang signs and speak directly.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)If you want to add in genetic fallacy, fine by me. You're making it about the person, as you so frequently do. What does any of the points he made have to do with being an intern? If you disagree, say what on and why.
The picture is part of making it about the writer and not the issue, once again.
Saying you disagree with someone because they are an intern is a dickish, condescending thing to do. And it does nothing to advance any sort of discussion about the issue of the OP.
Even by your standards, that's pretty lame.
rug
(82,333 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)Tsk, tsk.
Don't worry. They'll turn up with your next transparency page, no doubt.
rug
(82,333 posts)Ask MellowDem if that's an ad homiem and if it advances discussion.
bvf
(6,604 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Could be a serial plagurist whose had his entire catalog of articles scrubbed from major websites.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He loves to quote the ones who lie and steal from other writers and claim they're more credible than we are.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do tell.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Never mind that he's playing cute and trying to say he can call out something but no one else can call him on the same thing (Only much, much worse) Sounds all too familiar.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Do tell.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Which is just pathetic.
rug
(82,333 posts)Particularly when that source is as far from this thread as Pluto is from Yosemite.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Don't be surprised when the cows come home to roost.
rug
(82,333 posts)I've heard better defenses than yours from burglars.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)nichomachus
(12,754 posts)If history has taught us anything it's to never trust a Jesuit.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I think that so many people on the left love them some Pope Francis. The big one is religious privilege. Sure, the guy may be a homophobic misogynist, but really, that's religion, not his fault! And we gotta respect religion. Also, confirmation bias. Concentrating only on those things they Pope agrees with progressives on. Also, wishful thinking. Big change is coming soon to Catholicism, and this Pope proves it!
And finally, quite a few progressives identify as religious or even Catholic, and pretending Francis is super liberal makes it feel less shitty to continue identifying with an explicitly misogynistic, bigoted organization again. That, and a healthy dose of religious privilege, which goes back to the first point....
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Hestia
(3,818 posts)change 1900 +/- years of tradition in one fell swoop? Especially since he doesn't seem to have a handle on the US Cardinals & Bishops who call the shots here. They are the one's to actually go after since they seem to hate the Sisters. He seems to be like PBO - a figurehead to rally the troops and I don't think they've been happy with his pep talks since he ascended the (actual) throne. He definitely seems humbler and contrite than the modern popes we've been acquainted with.
Also, because one person doesn't like him, we are supposed to dog-pile on him too just, you know, because...?
These purity tests on the internetz are getting quite tiresome.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)These criticisms have nothing to do with the Pope's authority within the church or his ability to change things for the better, but his own personal opinions which he himself has publicly expressed.
He may not have the power or the influence to eliminate homophobia from the church, but he, as sentient individual, has all the power in the world to not be a fucking homophobe himself.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)We still hold his feet to the fire on issues he gets wrong. Nothing wrong with that at all. I fail to see why anyone wouldn't want to applaud anyone for getting something right.
Not A good person? That is pretty judgmental and I try my best not judge people like that. I'll stick to the issues.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)If he wasn't calling people like me a threat greater than nuclear weapons. It just gets to me... you know.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,262 posts)...
But he then says that every historical period has "Herods" that "destroy, that plot designs of death, that disfigure the face of man and woman, destroying creation."
"Let's think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings," he continues. "Let's think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation."
"With this attitude, man commits a new sin, that against God the Creator," the pope says. "The true custody of creation does not have anything to do with the ideologies that consider man like an accident, like a problem to eliminate."
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-strongly-criticizes-gender-theory-comparing-nuclear-arms
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Thank you for the explanation.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Is we are just confused, as if we are little children who need guidance.
How patronizing on one hand and how cruel to deny us who we are on the other.
Not to mention that being true to who we are is to live in "sin" and to require their "forgiveness"
Fuck that shit.
Before he was poped he claimed that same-sex marriage was Satan's plan.
So Fuck that shit too.
Learn this, the "theory" he attacks is the real life experience of living, breathing people.
And by attacking the "Gender-Theory" he IS attacking people like me, by denying my reality, by calling me confused, by calling me a sinner and giving comfort to people who would take any opportunity to make my life misery and perhaps even take it.
So fuck that shit and fuck the horse he brought it in on too.
You don't get to be ignorant any more, except by your own design.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)But I did read his full take on it and it doesn't seem to imply what you are saying. I still don't know enough about the theory to even have a take on it.
However, it does appear this Pope is much more wiling to embrace the LGBT community than any other one has and I am happy about that. Of course, the Church still has a long way to go on many issues but I think we should acknowledge when they get something even a little right. Nobody is suggesting you embrace him. And we all should keep up the fight for full equality and acceptance.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)his "embrace" is a poison one. RCC dogma still applies sex outside of marriage is a sin and same-sex marriage is not allowed, thus to have a consensual same-sex experience or relationship is a sin and requires forgiveness.
No amount of spin will take that fact away.
Those of us that are not on board the hetero-normal train are Shit Out Of Luck by his standards.
Yes you can come to church and be one of us as long as you live a chaste life, full of regret and misery that you are a terrible sinner if you even have lustful thoughts.
As I have said before Fuck that shit.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Is it is NOT some abstract academic argument.
It is the real life and sometimes death struggle of living, breathing people.
If nothing else Learn that.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)As I said, the Church still has a long way to go. I'm not even sure it will ever get there all together.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)However, I am very angry with the pope and his house.
So, I am sorry to have jumped up and down on you a little.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)And I did learn something.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)that others are now starting to see the PR campaign for what it is. Same doctrine, only presented with a smile.