Attack, Defend, Defeat!

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1222389' date='Mar 29 2007, 09:11 PM']I am a radical opposer to political correctness and linguistic sanitation. As such, I do not feel it necessary to remove words like "attack" and "defeat" from debates. I feel that's just another ineffective language-sanitation technique; as faulty as the idea that we can acheive gender equality by forcing people to use "him or her". it is no more effective to make us replace words which make debates lively in warfare allegory with more political correct terms like "clarify" and "discuss"

haha... no offence to Bro Adam's site or anything. It's a perfectly fine thing not to have bad attitudes about debate, but I do enjoy the livliness of the presumed warfare analogy.

oh... and I don't mean to come off as pompous or arrogant... haha... I just don't feel the need to alter my vocabulary in this manner. feel free to try to convince me that I should alter it here.[/quote]

Hmm...I'm glad I came to phatmass today I think? I don't know where this came from, or if there is something I'm missing, but to clarify the motto of our website at Catechetics Online is to "Never Attack. Never Defend. Always Clarify." The motto is not about being politically correct. In fact there is little politically correct about Catechetics Online. It goes directly against the popular mode of Catholic catechesis developed by Groome and Moran. Remember our website has to do primarily with catechesis and not grass roots apologetics, so the motto is fitting. While one can attack the argument in a debate, there is just no reason to use inflamed words. You don't want those you are catechizing to put up their defenses. St. John Bosco taught that we should get students to "love you, that way they will follow you anywhere." With students, even those in RCIA there is just no reason to attack - that is not what the Church asks of us, no reason to really even defend unless you have an especially ardent anti-catholic (but then why are they in RCIA?), the Church can take care of herself, but we need to be there to answer questions as Catholics to those who are inquiring - to clarify. The best answer is both charitable and calm - it gives respect to the other person, you will gain respect yourself, as well as a right to be heard, and you won't look like a buffoon those times when you slip up and make a mistake. I find now that I have gotten back into debate with Protestants after a year break I'm getting a lot farther a lot faster by never returning heated argument or logical fallacies (the ad hominen, red herring, argument to feeling, etc) and always just finding what the person is actually asking and answering that. It usually calms them down pretty quick and opens them up to real dialogue.

[Mateo el Feo]

Wonderful points, Adam, especially your motto.

Al, I would like to suggest something to you. In the other thread, I think that you provided a solid response to some of the questions that jesussaves brought up. At the same time, I think there was a definite hostile (and adversarial) tone in your response. I don't think that it can be justified (it's certainly counter-productive). In this case, jesussaves' original post had a few "digs" against the Church (stuff like, "the Catholic magisterium has the audacity"). So there was some hostility to begin with, but it was all pretty minor, I'd say.

In any event, I believe you desire to be an effective instrument for sharing the Faith with others--God bless you for that. What I and others here are suggesting are ways that will help you achieve your goal.

If I can recommend a "warrior-saint" worth emulating, it would be Saint Ignatius of Loyola. If you haven't read his biography, I would strongly recommend this one: [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895553457/"]The Life of St. Ignatius of Loyola by Fr. Genelli, SJ[/url]. In it, St. Ignatius faces quite a bit of adversity. What is amazing is the strength and persuasiveness that is the fruit of his docility. I do hope you'll consider this advice and the advice of the others.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Budge' post='1222658' date='Mar 29 2007, 09:59 PM']Theres one guy that posted a bunch of James verses about works, that did give me a run for my money but even there, works COME out of FAITH. They do not save, they are a FRUIT of FAITH.
But I sincerely believe Catholicism is evil...{NOT CATHOLIC PEOPLE} but the false religion.

So why wouldnt I post something off a Catholicism is evil website?

Wouldnt you post something off a MORMONISM is evil website?

or is that too unecumenical even though they are preaching that lucifer is Jesus's brother?[/quote]


If I was defeated as many times you have been with your post from anti-catholic websites, no. And I unlike yourself would respond to the scripture passages, the only reason I would not is because I could not.

And thats why you never answer the strong retorts to your anti-catholic copy and paste's, because the retorts defeat your paste's, and you have no answer.

On that note where in The Holy Bible does spirit = symbolic? Do you believe the spirit = symbolic only when referring to the body and blood of Our Lord, or are there other cases?

Edited March 30, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Aloysius]

Bro Adam; I do like the motto of your site; I only referred to it in jest because my defense of the words would seem to contradict the motto; which I do not intend to contradict because the mindset of argument you refer to by Never Attack, Never Defend, Always Clarify. Let me right now declare my utmost respect and agreement with such a philosophy; my reference to your site's motto was not intended as an insult to it... I was being slightly jovial because I was defending using words of warfare allegory to discuss what happened in debate and on the surface that would seem to contradict the words of your motto.

I do not believe my post to have been too adversarial... a few light jabs here and there indicating that the Fathers of the Council anticipated and defeated this argument long ago; that they knew more about the ECFs than jesusanswers or I did, et cetera... I suppose it could be interpretted that way, but it seems to me it's just the fun little language games that are designed to catch attention and make for entertaining banter were picked out and declared uncharitable. I really don't like that, that's what I call political correctness.

I think anyone who reads the way I respond in debates on a regular basis should understand I am totally on board with a mindset that would seek for both sides to come out with better understandings of things... I don't usually have a simplistic adversarial tone, nor do I feel I came accross that way in that thread. A few jabs like "The fathers of the Council defeat you here!" I don't think are inflamatory in the least; I would welcome a protestant who responded to some proposition I had made about Martin Luther by saying "Aha, the words of this great reformer himself defeat you here!". It makes for interesting conversation and lively, but not inflamed or angry, debate. I'm arguing against politically correct aversion to fun little phrases like this, not against the mindset of fair, honest, and charitable dialogue within the context of debate. My posts always turn out far longer than they were ever intended to be in my attempt to explore all sides of an issue from as far a perspective as I can acheive..

Perhaps such rhetoric is a dying breed? Perhaps, in order to squelch all possibility of being interpretted as uncharitable, we shall have to resort to binary codes of sanitary facts and nothing more one day. Perhaps this is how internet discussions will strike another blow to the fun and entertaining aspects of human argumentation. blah... ah well... bring on the newspeek maybe? never again say you shall defeat your debate opponent? certainly never speak of attacking him on this or that issue that he seems weak on... just state the facts in standard and precise manners so that no one ever gets inflamed.

But yeah... Bro Adam, sorry for any offence to your motto. It's a good motto; just not when people try to tell me not to include those specific words as part of my rhetorical style... but I welcome people to tell me (as some of you seem to think I have also done in this particular post) if they think I am having too much of a argumentative win-lose perspective at the expense of the better understanding of my opponent. I did not feel that I was in this particular post, though.

[Anomaly]

okay. Can I just insert a chuckle here?

[Brother Adam]

Al, I think I understand now, that you were only giving reference to our website concerning another matter here. All is good then, thanks for the clarification.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1222762' date='Mar 30 2007, 12:11 AM']If I was defeated as many times you have been with your post from anti-catholic websites, no. And I unlike yourself would respond to the scripture passages, the only reason I would not is because I could not.

And thats why you never answer the strong retorts to your anti-catholic copy and paste's, because the retorts defeat your paste's, and you have no answer.

On that note where in The Holy Bible does spirit = symbolic? Do you believe the spirit = symbolic only when referring to the body and blood of Our Lord, or are there other cases?[/quote]


See what I mean...