James White Has Completely Lost It

And by "it," I mean two things: First, his mind, and second, the debate.

The reason I say that is that White has now posted pictures depicting those who have urged him to be more charitable with Frank Beckwith as radical Muslims protesting and urging beheading.

Here are the pictures.

To the first he gave the name "RCfatwa" (i.e., Roman Catholic fatwa):

To the second he gave the name "RCcharity" (i.e., "Roman Catholic charity"--depicting the attitude of the man in the picture as the kind of charity that Catholics display):

ORIGINAL SOURCE.

Toward the end of his post, White seeks to blunt criticism of these pictures (or appears to do so) by saying:

Now, I have obviously attempted to insert a bit of levity, and a bit of humorous sarcasm here, for the simple reason that I'm to the point where you either have to laugh or cry.

I'm sorry, but no. This kind of excuse will not do. Not in the slightest.

You do not compare your interlocutors to Islamists or portray those who urge charity on your part as if they were advocates of beheading those who disagree with them. Whether you feel they are right or wrong, annoying or not, or even reasonable or not, the actions of people engaged in this discussion with White are simply incommensurate with the kind of actions undertaken by radical Muslims.

What White has done here is not humor.

It is vile. It is reprehensible. It is despicable. It is outrageous. If White were thinking rationally, he would see this.

Hence, White has lost his mind when it comes to this. He is not functioning as a rational agent on this topic.

He also loses any debate on this point via special application of Godwin's Law.

Godwin's Law holds that the longer an online discussion goes, the greater the odds of someone making a comparison to Hitler. It is standard practice in many Internet circles--because of the inflammatory nature of this comparison and its tendency to start flame wars and shut down rational discussion--to regard anyone who makes such a comparison (unless you are talking about real-life Nazis or mass murderers) as having automatically lost the debate in question.

Islamists are the Nazis of the post-9/11 world, and thus anyone who depicts his debate opponents as Islamists automatically loses whatever debate was underway due to forfeiture.

He has crossed a fundamental line that shows himself to be incapable of holding a rational discussion. Excuses like "it was just a little levity" count for nothing. Those are the remarks of a troll. The individual has shown that he is not willing to make a good faith effort to abide by the terms of Internet discussions, and there is no point in discussing anything with him--either ever or at least until he seriously and sincerely acknowledges just how far over the line he was.

Discussion over.

James, you lose.

If you were Catholic, I'd tell you to go to confession.

What you did was vile, unacceptable, and childish. You have reduced yourself to the status of a troll.

If you can't immediately see that and make amends then no one, knowing that you are capable of this, should engage you in debate or discussions of any kind.

UPDATE: The above pictures are so vile, particularly in light of 9/11 and the ensuing history and those who have been threatened or killed by radical Muslims, that this should be a matter upon which individuals of all confessional affiliations should be able to agree, including Evangelicals. I would like to invite Evangelicals, including those who have been close to White, to both publicly and privately distance themselves from the actions of Mr. White in posting these pictures as an act fundamentally incompatible with Christian charity. Evangelicals, in particular, can play a spiritual service to White by making this clear to him, since as the pictures themselves illustrate, he is deaf to appeals to charity from Catholics.

Comments

[AnnonyMouse]

:0(

[bill912]

I think he just lost a lot of people. It's called "Jumping The Shark". It's doubtful that he'll ever recover from it.

[bill912]

"Now, I have obviously attempted to insert a bit of levity, and a bit of humorous sarcasm here, for the simple reason that I'm to the point where you either have to laugh or cry."

I hope somebody picks his marbles off the floor before he slips on them.

Seriously, though, it's time to pray for him.

[francis 03]

Sooner or later, someone shows up in most of these threads to stick up for White. I wonder if anyone will do so this time. Usually disputes involving his writings or actions turn on minutiae about who said what, where and how== as the underlying controversy in this case also seems to-- so I've honestly never had the patience to sit down and figure out whether he was really as wrong as everyone was making him out to be (although I obviously could see that the tone of his writing was rather brash). But as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words-- and I've now seen two thousand very ugly words from James White. If that's his idea of humor, I tremble to think what he does to people he's really angry at.

[Eileen R]

I'm to the point where you either have to laugh or cry.

Well, that's true enough in its own way. I'm torn between both myself reading this. (Though the laughter is gaining the upper hand at the moment. Is Beckwithamas the new Bushitler?)

[Constantine]

I have noticed that White has been especially hysterical about the Beckwith situation. I never had any respect for James White so I can't say that I am disappointed in him or that I have lost respect for him. I expect this from him and other anti-Catholics. Anti-Catholicism rots the mind. James is obviously in the end stage of the affliction.

[Jeremiah]

The outrage here seems a little melodramatic

[bill912]

"By their fruits, you will know them."

[Mary]

"Melodramatic" in what respect?

Lying about Catholics can't be bad because it's a joke?

Perhaps you should consider these verses:

"Like a crazed archer scattering firebrands and deadly arrows
Is the man who deceives his neighbor, and then says, 'I was only joking.'"

[Foxfier]

Golly, Mary, we must be melodramatic for objecting to being equated with folks who murder victims of rape, because we object to a fellow assuming someone is a liar!

[Ray]

I am not necessarily sticking up for this kind of behavior(in terms of the pictures) but everyone is human and give the guy a break. He preceives himself as being under heavy attack, and when we are under attack we don't always make the best choices.

Now, I realize that there is tension between Catholics and James White because he challenges the teachings of the Catholic Faith but don't let that distort your judgements. Let's be honest, if it were anyone other than him posting pictures like that people wouldnt be reacting in such a manner. Don't use this as a cheap debate tactic to aviod the real issues. Don't poisen the well.

[Alex]

Islamists are the Nazis of the post-9/11 world

You smear with a broad brush Jimmy.

[Foxfier]

Alex-- Islamist= radical Muslim, not to be confused with the non-murderous Muslims.

[Jeremiah]

Foxfier: it seems like convenient outrage. This is a neat easy way to end discussion and avoid any further diuscussion of the issue.

[Foxfier]

Ray, there's tension between the folks here and Mr. White because he accused a good man of lying on very slim grounds, then equated those who object to a murderous mob.

Read the post. Then see if you're still defending the guy.

[Foxfier]

Jeremiah-- gee, the Angelwing Consperacy must've hacked into Mr. White's site and posted the pictures.

[Jeremiah]

sorry, I don't know what you mean by "Angelwing Consperacy"

[Esau]

Now, I realize that there is tension between Catholics and James White because he challenges the teachings of the Catholic Faith but don't let that distort your judgements. Let's be honest, if it were anyone other than him posting pictures like that people wouldnt be reacting in such a manner. Don't use this as a cheap debate tactic to aviod the real issues. Don't poisen the well.

Oh, so this post here is nothing but a CHEAP DEBATE TACTIC from Jimmy Akin????

Ray,

Speaking of "CHEAP DEBATE TACTICS TO AVOID THE REAL ISSUES", you seem to OVERLOOK the fact that it is JAMES WHITE resorting to "CHEAP DEBATE TACTICS TO AVOID THE REAL ISSUES", but I guess THAT'S OKAY, huh????

[Alex]

Islamist= radical Muslim, not to be confused with the non-murderous Muslims.

Radical <> murderous.

[Foxfier]

Alex- yes.

[Jeremiah]

Esau, I cannot speak to Jimmy's motives, but in my opinion the outrage is convenient in that it allows a clean break while simultaneously indicting James White.

[bill912]

By their fruits you will know them". Thanks, Jeremiah.

[Foxfier]

Let me get this straight, J:
Accuse other side of being murderous mob rather than actually making an argument, OK.
Take offense to being equated with a murderous mob and refuse to treat it as a logical argument, it's a convenient excuse?

[bill912]

Francis 03: It didn't take long, did it?

[Ray]

I remember the picture Dave Armstrong put up a while back, a caricature of James White with blood running down his face, it was pretty disgusting and more personal. Dave Armstrong wasn't stoned to death for doing that.

[bill912]

Oh, no! Ray found out about the albino monk assassins we've sent out to stone James White! What'll we do?

[Ray]

Bill, I guess figure of speech is lost on you?

[bill912]

Ray: LOL!

[Beth]

James White Has Completely Lost It. The reason I say that is that White has now posted pictures

He posted the same pictures you did Jimmy.

[bill912]

BTW: I was "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".

[Esau]

Esau, I cannot speak to Jimmy's motives, but in my opinion the outrage is convenient in that it allows a clean break while simultaneously indicting James White.

Posted by: Jeremiah | Aug 9, 2007 7:41:30 PM

Jeremiah,
It's funny how you have maliciously characterized the actions of Catholics while COMPLETELY IGNORING the egregiously uncharitable actions of James White.

[bill912]

Your point, Beth?

[Mary]

It's the Vast Angelwing Conspiracy, Jeremiah! It's out to confuse you!

But I will reveal the truth to you: It's too late to save James White. You should not give yourself a reputation for purblind deceptiveness trying to save him.

[GLowe]

As a Protestant, I'm ashamed of James White's actions. I used to devour his works, and use them quite often against Catholic friends in apologetic discussions. Unfortunately, his works have some decent conent...but he lacks the general Christian character. I just pray no one looks to him to see a reflection of Christ's attitude. This is taking the idea of overturning the temple tables a bit too far. I just hope people don't see him as the representative of Protestantism. However, I would like to make a suggestion. As awful as it is, what he did shouldn't make anyone else treat him differently. Christ forgave and still treated people charitably. We are to forgive not just 7 times...remember those words? I hope that we can all pray for James, his walk with the Lord, and that he would embrace his Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in the Lord. He can think you're going to hell and still treat you as decent human beings. And likewise, if we reflect Christ, we should give him the love that Christ would, yet the correction that comes with Church discipline.

Though...I must wonder-- did Paul post a picture of the Pharisees as a brood of vipers on his blog ;)

[Katherine Therese]

But I will reveal the truth to you: It's too late to save James White.

It's never too late to save anyone. We should storm heaven with prayers for his conversion. The fact he is so angry at Catholics and Catholicism could mean his conscience is bothering him.

[My Cat's Name is Lily]

Blecchh.
I seriously need a "projectile vomiting" smiley to express my disgust.
If James White thinks this is humorous, he has indeed lost his mind, along with his common sense, and his simple ordinary decency.
And, by the bye,I am a United Methodist, not Catholic. A Methodist who thinks that James White needs his mouth and especially his mind, washed out with soap. And plenty of it.

[Brett Cooper]

As a Catholic, I agree with GLowe. In discussions let's not give in to anger but rather focus on charity. God is Justice as well as Mercy. Only He knows all of the facts. We should err on the side of mercy and leave the justice to Him. Thanks for listening.

[Foxfier]

GL, Brett-- Jesus forgave those who repented.

Soon as White says "Look, I'm sorry"-- I'll be cool with 'im.

[Shane]

Let us not forget that Jesus treated those who had not repented with Charity.

[CareBear]

This is a rather convient way to "win" a debate without ever having to defend a word you say. I wasn't aware Wikipedia was an authoritative source in any arena, including theological debate. I suppose I should brush up on my regulations though, that or Mr. Akin should deal with the issues.

[Lane]

God is love. The fulfilment of the law is love your neighbor as yourself. Don't bear false witness to your neighbor is a law from God. If the RCC and its apologists are so concerned with charity, why do they not seriously deal with the issues that are presented by Protestant apologists such as James White instead of just insisting that everyone blindly follow the "church" without any kind of examination of the facts so that people will not be confused and misinformed by any lies? Simple. In order to refute a lie, you have to do so with the truth.

[Guardian]

Soon as White says "Look, I'm sorry"-- I'll be cool with 'im.

HAHA!!!! FAT CHANCE!!!! OLE' JIMBO WHITE APOLOGIZE?? NEVER!!!!

[StubbleSpark]

This is a little worse than that time you told that horribly inappropriate joke at worst place and time and everyone looked at you like you were Jack the Ripper or something.

Okay, so I guess I am the only one here who had that experience.

It is hard to take back a joke but real easy to pull pictures off a website. That alone should be enough to appease some people but as of this writing, the pictures are still there.

White is ridiculing people for asking him to be charitable. Talk about your sins against the Holy Spirit! There are some actions one is obligated to take in situations like these even if you do not feel guilty of being uncharitable. It is a manner of common decency and respect for the one's fellow man (I would say fellow Christian, but I know White has his own theory on that).

Purely in terms of strategy, he must know that this is hurting his cause among both his co-religionists and those he presumably seeks to woo from the One True Church.

Call it a red herring, jumping the shark, ad hominum (where the hominum is the Body of Christ), or what have you. It is not conducive, constructive, or Christian. It is merely his oldest trick: be the circus mirror in which to reflect the beliefs of those who disagree with you.

Finally, it is not funny in the least.

[Esau]

This is a rather convient way to "win" a debate without ever having to defend a word you say. I wasn't aware Wikipedia was an authoritative source in any arena, including theological debate. I suppose I should brush up on my regulations though, that or Mr. Akin should deal with the issues.

CareBear,
Tell me -- did James White even "deal with the issues"?

Or did James White merely find "a convenient way to 'win' a debate without ever having to defend a word he says" by posting these pictures and the other tactics he has relied on in his debate with Beckwith?

[StubbleSpark]

Carebear and Lane,

Late have you come in this debate that has raged over the past decade or so. James White and Jimmy Akin have met on numerous occasions in a variety of formats and frankly it is White who ends up tossing red herrings to avoid dealing with the truth.

[Tim H.]

I pretty much agree with My Cat's Name is Lily (maybe Methodist minds think alike?...when did that start?). White is one of these guys who spends half his time making fun of his opposite number among the Catholic apologists and responding to ad hominems (umm, "ad hominis"?) with his own ad hominems. I might agree with some points he makes, but they're overwhelmed by the mudslinging. (And he enjoys throwing some mud against those of us who aren't of his specific theology, on top of it, so we Methodists aren't exactly in his good graces, either, I reckon.)

That said, I wouldn't get all worked up over this. Jeremiah's got a point, that it's a little melodramatic to make this into "He's calling us bloodthirsty terrorists!" The photoshops are kind of funny, if you're completely outside the debate (as I am), or would be funnier if White didn't actually *deserve* some of what anger he's already getting anyway. (And he does, for other things.)

But then, as others have pointed out, you've got Catholic apologists doing the same sort of jokes from their side. I don't get outraged over those, either (and again, White often deserves being poked fun at). Sigh...I reckon it's a tragic cycle of internet violence. Maybe we can call the blue helmet guys in as peacekeepers? ;)

Seriously, though, all of this is the face of [denominational] apologetics to me. Everybody spends his time responding to criticism or disagreement with personal insults and making fun of the apologist on the other side. [I've been glad that Jimmy, at least, has generally refrained from this.] I can't get worked up over it, although I'd like to suggest they all cut it out. Good grief, aren't we all Christians, here?! What about that description of Christians all having great love for one another?! Yikes.

[Dean]

Lane,
"why do they not seriously deal with the issues that are presented by Protestant apologists".Case in point please.

[StubbleSpark]

As a matter of fact, one of the pivotal moments in my conversion was an AUDIO CASSETTE of James White and Jimmy Akin on a Protestant radio talk show.

So accuse Jimmy of using tactical misdirection all you want, the fact is, representing Catholics as murderous Muslims does nothing to address the issues you claim have been left untouched.

[CareBear]

"Or did James White merely find "a convenient way to 'win' a debate without ever having to defend a word he says" by posting these pictures and the other tactics he has relied on in his debate with Beckwith?"

Esau,

Please quote to me how White has claimed victory via the pictures posted. I have a fuzzy memory, but I seem to recall that Akin did just that a few internet feet above where we dialogue now.

Any other fallacious statements or can I get back to something fruitful?

[CareBear]

"Carebear and Lane,

Late have you come in this debate that has raged over the past decade or so. James White and Jimmy Akin have met on numerous occasions in a variety of formats and frankly it is White who ends up tossing red herrings to avoid dealing with the truth."

Mind backing that up?

[StubbleSpark]

Carebear,

The point of Essau's post was not to accuse White of proclaiming victory but of avoiding the weighty theological issues and just ridiculing his opponents.

Fallacious though that may sound.

[CareBear]

"Soon as White says "Look, I'm sorry"-- I'll be cool with 'im.

HAHA!!!! FAT CHANCE!!!! OLE' JIMBO WHITE APOLOGIZE?? NEVER!!!! "

I think this characterizes the attitude of Akin's crew well and, oddly enough, corresponds with the general attitude of ignorant zeal held by those in the doctored photographs.

[Esau]

CareBear,

Have you even paid attention to the White v. Beckwith debate???

Or do you deliberately GLOSS OVER White's specious statements???

By the way, what WAS the purpose of White posting those pictures????

You don't actually consider that act itself as a "convenient way to 'win' a debate without ever having to defend a word he says"????

[M Burke]

As the creator of said images, I gave those images their name. (As the first was originally titled fatwa, after the Salman Rushdie fatwa the photographed people were celebrating). Both images are were created in humor, with the intent of adding some needed levity to the discussion and to point out the similarities between those who call Islam a religion of peace while demanding beheadings and the hypocrisy of those demanding "charity" in the Beckwith discussion while using the kind of ad hom seen here and the CA boards (as well as the silliness of registering jamesrwhite.org for the CA site.)

Stubble,

I'm sorry, but that interpretation cannot be accepted as Esau purported that White was attempting to 'win' the debate via posting the pictures and some list of unnamed, unmentioned tactics that have yet to be named or proven to have been employed, but nonetheless still somehow implicate White in some wrongdoing.

And you're right, that does sound fallacious.

"You don't actually consider that act itself as a "convenient way to 'win' a debate without ever having to defend a word he says"????"

No, because I don't consider posting pictures in the name of humor a way to win a debate. Perhaps you do with the rest of the Akin crew, as Akin seems to have used the pictures and some dubious "Law" from wikipedia to claim victory. Don't make the mistake of assuming I hold the same low standard as you.

[Tim H.]

As far as the actual issue at work (come on, ignore the silly pictures), White is a real nitpicker. I read Beckwith's description of re-reading the Council of Trent, and though, admittedly, I would have to wonder exactly what he'd thought he read into it the first time, his wording is simply a little loose, or he's exaggerating to be funny. But it's *not* a big deal!

Sheesh. You've got White acting like Perry Mason, as if catching Beckwith playing fast and loose with his various understandings of Trent is going to make him finally jump up and shout, "All right, I admit it! I killed her husband and threw his body off the train in Shanghai!" (With apologies to "Bloom County")

Heh, heh...in a funny way, he's doing the kind of thing that Jesuits have been accused of... :)

[StubbleSpark]

"I think this characterizes the attitude of Akin's crew well and, oddly enough, corresponds with the general attitude of ignorant zeal held by those in the doctored photographs."

So not only is the picture funny, but it also appropriate in an almost prophetic way.

[netnet]

Let's see, who else could jump on in here and pick up where Mr. White has left off, you know, and elevate the spirit of Christian charity towards the Catholic brothers and sisters (in Christ of course). Wasn't there a guy who was good at this, what's his name...Chick or something? I mean as far as the level of charity goes, things can only go up from here, am I wrong?

[CareBear]

By the by, www.jameswhite.org for the CA website url? Isn't that a little...obsessive?

I mean, what do you tell people who stumble onto the site looking for theological answers who have never heard of James White? Wouldn't they then be more intruiged to find out more about him, seeing as you deem him important enough to name your apologetics website after him? I suppose such a thing fits the logic and attitude of the mob though.

[CareBear]

Prophetic? No. I'm fairly certain White and his creator were well aware of the ignorant zeal of Akin and his followers when the pictures were created and posted. That's why they are ironic and funny. The fact that Akin and his crew played into their hands just reinforces their predictability.

[StubbleSpark]

Heh, heh...in a funny way, he's doing the kind of thing that Jesuits have been accused of... :)

Yeah, heh heh!

(Somebody clue me in -- what part of Dan Brown's book is he referring to?)

[Esau]

Don't make the mistake of assuming I hold the same low standard as you.

Oh, is that why you and the "Disciples of James White" purchased the "www.jameswhite.org" domain in order to implicate Jimmy Akin as well as Catholic Answers with such Act of Deception?

[StubbleSpark]

So in your mind, Carebear, Catholics have no reason to feel outrage at being compared to terrorists when they call for charity?

[Esau]

CareBear,

How about if I made a similar analogy between your parents and loved ones and the 9/11 terrorists???

All in good humour, of course, right???

Or is it only acceptable for James White to do that???

[CareBear]

"Oh, is that why you and the "Disciples of James White" purchased the "www.jameswhite.org" domain in order to implicate Jimmy Akin as well as Catholic Answers with such Act of Deception?"

I really don't know how to respond to this one, as I'm laughing a bit too hard.

1. You have no clue who I am and I am in no way associated with the actions of James White or his ministry. The fact that I come here and do not side with the Jimmy Akin followers does not make me a "Disciple of White" as you presumptiously put it.

2. I have no idea what you're talking about pertaining to the url. I noticed that the URL was ww.jamesrwhite.org, yet the website presented was Catholic Answers. That leaves me with a bit of a conundrum, why is a roman Catholic apologetics website bearing the name of an apologist who opposes their position.

Can I safely assume now that you answer all questions pertaining to the nature of the CA URL in such a manner, ignorantly assuming that anyone who inquires about it is somehow a "Disciple of White"? Or would you rather retract the presumptious statement and just admit you jumped the gun while you were getting a little too emotional and excited?

Esau,

My parents and loved ones don't blindly follow the work of an internet apologist, regarding him and his work with blind fervor and zeal, hypocritically asking for things that they themselves don't offer. Ergo, your proposition doesn't make sense, and don't try to rob the situation of its context again.

[Esau]

CareBear, ChurchMouse,

Finally -- I see now the ruse!!!

Before today, I wasn't even aware of the "www.jameswhite.org" website which diverted visitors to Catholic Answers.

Now, given what Foxfire was alluding to in the other thread, I can see that it is more than likely that the "White" disciples were responsible for this deception:

1. They innocently introduced the website in the "Amazing. Simply Amazing." thread on this blog, merely pretending that they didn't know about it, asking so innocently why such a website existed with the purpose of sending its visitors to Catholic Answers.

2. Declare it as being such a malicious act of deception, condemning those responsible for the act.

3. Point the finger directly at Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers -- as finally revealed here by your comments!

The Final Act was just -- amazing!

Amazing-ly repugnant and dispicable, that is!

Stubble,

Catholics weren't compared to terrorists as I understand it. The comparison was made between those who are asking for a charitable attitude from Mr. White, yet do not display it themselves.

I was unaware that such a thing implicates the entirety of Roman Catholicism because I'm not into committing categorical errors.

[Foxfier]

Guys, ignore CareBear. He's trolling.

[CareBear]

Esua,

Any more conspiracy theories you want to lay down on us, or is the cannabis plant calling?

[StubbleSpark]

Somebody bring me up to speed.

Essau, what are you talking about?

[Foxfier]

Stubble-- the last White post. Someone named Guardian posted a link to Jamewrwhite.org, it re-directs to Catholic Answers, three hours later Mr. White is ranting that we did it, and the threat kind of devolved into trying to explain that it would be a really stupid thing for someone pro-Catholic Answers to do.

[Esau]

CareBear,

Thank you so much for your answer!

I see now that blindly following James White is acceptable for you.

That it's okay for James White to post pictures of terrorists and make the comparison between these terrorists and Catholics.

[Ray]

White has responded on his blog to Jimmy's post.

Esua,

I thought the 9/11 terrorists died in the crashes? Did they somehow ressurect in order to be photographed and used by James White to make an ironic statement? Or are you again presuming a little too much and equating rallying Islamics with 9/11 terrorists?

Appeals to emotion don't suit you well.

[Esau]

Stubblepark,

Visit the "Amazing. Simply Amazing." thread.

You can observe for yourself how this ruse was initiated from start.

[Esau]

Gee, CareBear, weren't you paying attention to my comments???

Or are you so wrapped up with your infatuation for James White that you didn't even pay attention to certain particulars which have clearly gone above your head!

Esau,

Apparently you don't understand what it means to make a "category error". the pictures don't pertain to all Roman Catholics, just to schmoes like you....

[StubbleSpark]

Anon,

1) We have a rule here about not using some type of name when posting. I am reminding you because it may result in your getting booted and I do not want that to happen.

Anon and Carebear,

Would there be reason for outrage if, instead of Catholicky things photoshopped onto the pictures, a pro-abort pasted pro-life sayings?

Actually, given the overall anti-religious atmosphere of pro-aborts, I would be surprised if this and much worse had not already been done.

Could pro-lifers feel outrage if their call to charity to the unborn was portrayed as murderous invective?

"Gee, CareBear, weren't you paying attention to my comments???

Or are you so wrapped up with your infatuation for James White that you didn't even pay attention to certain particulars which have clearly gone above your head!"

And now we descend into argumentum ad hominem...

[CareBear]

The no name is me. I apologize for breaking the rules I will strive to remember to include a name in the future.

[Esau]

Quid significat hoc verbum?

Benigne dicis.

Id non faciam, definitum est.

[labrialumn]

I'm not terribly impressed with the behavior of some participants on either side.

The first problem being that it is a point-scoring debate, not a search for truth.

The second that both sides have fielded very weak and odd arguments.

The third is that both have slung mud.

Dr. Beckworth, however, has not slung mud. And there are a few on both sides who have not descended, either.

One of the rules of L'Abri is "honest answers for honest questions." I don't see a lot of that going on.

[CareBear]

Stubble,

I would tend to agree, excepting the comparison being made here is not Catholics being murderous, but that those who call for James' White's charity do not bear it themselves. Ergo, one is holding a sign that demands charity or face beheading.

Also, the pictures appear to liken those Muslims rallying against Rushdie with blind zeal, who had probably never read anything by him, with those here and other places who rally against White with that same blind zeal, yet have never read a paragraph by him.

No one called Roman Catholics murderous, something the posters here seem to be ignoring in order to continue acting shocked and in disbelief so they can appeal to emotion rather than deal with issues.

I guess they follow the lead of their shepherd, Akin.

[Esau]

Malumus pugnare, non recedere.

[CareBear]

I'll take being familiar with logical fallacy to being familiar with Latin any day of the week. Perhaps you should take the plunge too Esau.

[StubbleSpark]

So the same type of photo would be appropriate if demonstrated by a pro-choicer wishing to inject "levity" into the pro-life debate?

[John]

Labrialumn,

I agree with everything you wrote. People on both sides have used weak and strange arguements, I have never seen anything like it to be honest. Essentially they are contending about something that shouldnt even be an issue. Rhetoric and emotionalism on both sides. I mean if you look at white's newest post he has a picture of a troll on in it! HAHAAH...what is the world coming to

[CareBear]

That illustration forsakes the context of the present situation.

[Esau]

No one called Roman Catholics murderous

Ahhh -- sooooo....

Meaning if I were to post a picture of Nazis and make the caption that it reflects Caucasians, it in no way says anything even remotely demeaning about them.

[CareBear]

Esau,

You're again committing that same category error. Clear that up and you might score one on me.

[Edward]

Get your popcorn and enjoy the freak show!

[CareBear]

I'm expecting the entire fanbase of Jimmy Akin to act accordingly and immediatly chastize Edward for likening all Roman Catholics to a "freakshow".

[StubbleSpark]

Carebear,

My presumption is that Edward is anti-religion and anti-Christian. Which would unfortunately include YOU in that comment.

Given that the comment was made the intention of injecting levity, it can be forgiven, right?

[Edward]

CareBear,

What makes you think I am refering specifically to Catholics. It takes more than a few monkies to to consitute a cirus!

[CareBear]

I'm disappointed.

Esau attempts to keep up with me point for point for simply not agreeing with him, but he won't apply the same category error he does to James White to this fellow here, Edward.

Edward likened some Roman Catholics to a freakshow, as James White likened some Roman Catholics blind zealots. From there, the posters here committed the category error of applying that likening to ALL Roman Catholics.

honestly, if you'r going to be consistant, you need to consistently apply that category error to Edward too, lest your obsession for White be found out.

[Edward]

And I cant spell! hehe

[CareBear]

Stubble,

I'm well aware of Edward and his religious, or non-relegious presuasion.

I'm being sarcastic to make a point. Edward is of no real concern to me or anyone here in reality.

[Foxfier]

Look, have any of y'all defending him READ the bloody post that goes with the pictures?

Crowds of faithful followers of Rome had gathered in the parking lot in support of the Charitable Dr. Beckwith, calling for my immediate repentance and adoption of charity

So, was he saying that Roman soldiers came back from the dead? Or may, just maybe, given that he's against ROMAN Catholics, he's refering to Roman Catholics?