thegreekdog wrote:No. I said I wouldn't read the anti-Catholic threads. And I don't.
Ultimately, my argument in McGill was that you didn't like (to put it mildly) the "making fun of the Holocaust by making up fake movie names" thread but you had no problem bashing Catholics in another thread. That seems hypocritical to me.
image of plain old inside of ChurchMASS GENOCIDE:
appeal to emotion pic
You really see no difference?
This again is easy to break down.
1. TGD isn't arguing about a difference between genocide and those who arguably 'willingly' participate in a weekly mass.
2. JB insists that he is, thus creating a straw man fallacy.
3. TGD's point about JB implies that JB's being a 'militant' atheist toward the religious is insensitive. Yet, JB takes offense (i.e. becomes sensitive) to jokes about the Holocaust.
4. JB is being a hypocrite. He whines about a joke which offends his sensitive side, yet he has no problem inflicting emotional harm and anger on those who are sensitive about religion.
Let's apply this to the 5-step model:
Step One: JB makes a point.
Step Two: TGD attempts to refute. (mentions hypocrisy)
Step Three: JB does not adequately refute TGD's refutation. (JB relies on logical fallacies)
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy. (this post)
GUEST WHAT STEP 5 WILL BE?
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS or TGD of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.
(of course, since we mentioned this, they have an incentive to adjust their response accordingly).