Wikipedia says a logical fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument. We used to be taught this in school. My first formal exposure to deductive and inductive reasoning was in science class in junior high school. Later I studied mathematical logic in college.
Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from specific observations to general observations.

Often we tend to think of inductive reasoning as bad, or sloppy reasoning, but that is not the case. Inductive reasoning is the base for the scientific method, for how research is conducted. We use it every day to help us figure the world out, to make sense of things, to make decisions.
That being said, I think it is too often misused.
Before I throw dirt at others, let me come clean with my own worst tendency to use it. Bear with me please, it involves some ideas and conflicts specific to Catholicism, but it’s my best example of where I let my own logic fail me, and emotion take over, and that’s the whole point of this post. If you are Catholic, I’d ask you, no matter which side of the divide you might be on, or perhaps even not relate at all, to look for the point here and not get sidetracked.
The last decades have seen an increasing number of Catholics be just as divided into camps as we are in politics. Catholics who prefer to attend Mass in the Ancient, also called Extraordinary Form, commonly known as the Latin Mass, have become known as Trad Catholics. Some self identify with that term, and some use it, and see it, as an insult.
Most Catholics, including me, choose to attend the Ordinary Form, or Novus Ordo. Little or no Latin is spoken, although there are a number of important differences in the two forms of the Mass.
I have had the unfortunate experience of having a number of bad encounters with Trad Catholics. Indeed, the worst I’ve ever been attacked for one of my posts on this blog was by several Trads, and it was really vicious.
Consequently, I tend to not give Traditional Catholics the benefit of the doubt in my encounters with them. In spite of the fact that theologically my beliefs are almost identical to theirs. My values almost always align with theirs. We have much in common politically and in lifestyle choices.
But because my own specific encounters have been difficult, I often form opinions about their actions and motivations based on a very minute set of facts, and contrary to many other things I know to be true.
So, on to other examples I see, specifically here, that concern me.
Everyone who differs in opinion in some way from commonly held MAGA doctrine, whatever that might be, is not necessarily failing to support President Trump.
Everyone who expresses a dissenting or unpopular opinion here is not necessarily a troll.
Everyone who agrees with the choice of Vance for Vice President or disagrees with the choice is not necessarily a subversive deep state enemy or a brilliant thinker who never fails to connect the dots, or listen to good counsel.
If I have a moral and religious belief or value more closely held than my opposition to abortion, I can’t think what it is. Yet, I will say, not everyone who gets an abortion is evil. There are young, ignorant and uninformed girls and women who are often pressured into this terrible choice. There are sex trafficked victims for whom this is just one more terrible abuse.
There is an awful lot of talk right now, given the British cop who wants to, haha, extradite Americans for exercising freedom of speech. We need to think about what that means, freedom of speech.
If we believe in the right, then we believe in it for everyone. I don’t have to approve of what you say, and I should not therefore decide that you are a bad person, a lazy thinker, or even not just a supporter of President Trump because you said something I don’t believe.
Over the years, some of my most important choices in life have been based on information I obtained by talking to people I thought were wrong, or people I disagreed with. Sometimes those discussions led me to clarify and temper my own thoughts, improving my position and my opinions. Sometimes, they led me to investigate a different path.
My choice to support President Trump in his initial run for president was greatly influenced by Sundance and some of you. I was initially curious, open to learning more and supporting him, as I hated the other choices, but it was not a done deal based on emotion. I had a lot to think about.
I actually never intended to convert to Catholicism, the most important choice of my whole life. I was pursuing knowledge for a different reason entirely. Life is like that, if you set out to learn things.
Do not tell people they don’t belong here because they disagreed with you.
Do not call them a troll because they disagreed with you.
If you only ever go to the library looking for books by one author because you really, really like him, you sure are going to be a stunted, uninformed person throughout your life. And the one who will have lost the most is you.
👉This post 📫 is going in my personal review frequently file AND going to a variety of personal contacts both family and friends 👈
Thanks Menagerie (and Sundance) 👌👍
Thank you! Wonderful post
I will be first to say as a proud Traditional Catholic that my general sense of curiosity lead me to abandon Novus Ordo Catholicism in favour of Traditional Catholicism. And I am guilty, though not on this site, of perhaps being overzealous in educating NO Catholics on the differences. I recommend AKA Catholic or Novus Ordo Watch as more nuanced and balanced explanations of the differences since they are much more educated than I am. I understand the arguments but get frustrated with the refusal of some Catholics who don’t recognize what the council (V II) did to the Church.
That being said, I defend others’ rights to believe as that is the fundamental basis of this country.
This is a very good endorsement of diversity of thought. Works the same way as diversity in Nature. Nature doesn’t put all her eggs in one basket. Diversity of thought works the same way. It also requires the very civilizing tolerance and open mindedness to the thoughts and ideas of others. And a thick skin not prone to losing it emotionally on hearing things critical of our thoughts that we strongly disagree with. We stand behind our beliefs and the rights of others to have their own, differing beliefs. Also required are some basic, common, humane values, in particular refraining from or calling for harm to others with different points of view.
Thank you.
Excellent. Thank You.
For folks who might want to pursue more:
Redeeming Reason, A God-Centered Approach, by Vern S. Poythress
okay. I will pursue
Dr. Vern S. Poythress (PhD, Harvard; DTh, Stellenbosch) is professor of New Testament interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary. His academic interests include the triune nature of God, Christ’s sovereignty over all areas of life, and the study of biblical hermeneutics. He is also an ordained teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. You can read more of his content at faculty.wts.edu.
Bio copied from Amazon
He has six academic degrees including a PhD in mathematics, and a ThD
Excellent post, Menagerie. Thank you!
Hi Menagerie,
Thanks for your post.
You say you studied mathematical logic in college. Me too, extensively, at UCLA in the early 1970s, which was the best place in the world for that at the time. My degree is in Math, with a minor in Music.
Was the logic you studied First Order Predicate Logic?
Did it include Identities and Descriptions?
Did you also study Set Theory?
Was the logic vegetarian? 🙂 Just kidding! I was NOT a vegetarian in college, and I was a Democrat!
VegGOP
Mathematicians are so… weird… seriously.
Well not really… 😉
Now us Physicists are the best, naturally, but we need those mathematicians to come up with some way of looking at relations that we might use to create some model that will generate papers and grants..
Seriously, I like Mathematicians… nice people, sort of strange.
BTW, IMHO, Format Logic as taught by the Philosophy Dept is the course to take since it is the most generic ( fundamental ) and easier to apply in all fields.
Formal, Tony, not Format.
I learned logic in the Philosophy Dept at UCLA, but got Math Dept credit for it.
First Order Predicate Logic with Identities and Descriptions, then Set Theory which rests upon it and that, in turn (and miraculously), ties all of mathematics together. IMO, this was the greatest intellectual achievement in human history. Big topic, not for here.
I also studied Math Logic at Navy from a Marine Major. My favorite course, loved Math and took all I could get. Nice to know I have one thing in common with Sundance. And VegGOP. Did I miss something else?
One reason I love this forum and the people on it is that there is an understanding that civil discourse in society today is a fast disappearing virtue.
Disagree we may do, but in the main we engage in constructive conversation, many times learning from one another’s arguments in respects we might not have considered.
And I will add this…
In this chaotic unhinged world today where so many have been battered and broken, none of us knows what those we are disagreeing or arguing with is going through in his or lives which might affect the tone of a comment.
Just something I think of when words get a little heated…and before I type a single in response to someone who has aimed an unpleasant reply to me. Which, thankfully has been on only a rare occasion.
In the end when we can be anything in this world, being kind and considerate should be the first order before one engages.
I know it sounds trite, but a gentle, well thought out, civilized response might make all the difference to someone in a difficult place who needs one.
Blessings to all…
Thank you Betsy,
this is true. Sometimes we are the ones carrying a burden, maybe just a small one, but our response is not good. We are just people. Thank you for bringing this up because it is a sore point for me for the past 2.5 years. Very painful family interactions, lots of diminishing insulting behavior and accusations.
I need to remind myself that others are carrying a burden. Perhaps we should all just treat each other
with more thoughtful considerations.
It’s when there are threads on the economy, or those wretched jabs, etc that people’s stories and trials come out Rosemary. Where we learn a little more about our neighbours in these blessed branches whose names are familiar to us, but that’s about it.
I pay close attention to those names.
Worth asking if what we say in a spur of the moment reactionary reply is what we would say if that person were standing in front of us face to face. Extend that grace which He mercifully extends to us.
And if we find that for the moment we cannot?
Best to leave it and live to post another day 😉
“ Very painful family interactions, lots of diminishing insulting behavior and accusations.” Yes my heart hurts from this. I am bewildered by it.
A disagreement on things is fine, it is how mankind learns things.
People who can not handle disagreements are IMHO not only disagreeable but also quite insecure.
Like the guy said, “nothing personal… but”…
In my field, with our peer reviews, you learn to disagree… “nothing personal”….
Excellent advice.
When I was running for provincial politics I became so disappointed with the conservative movement in Ontario, especially within the freedom fighting elements.
Elections were being held at a time when trust in the mainstream political parties was at an all time low, but the splintering of alt-right options to the Doug Ford Progressive Conservatives was unimaginable.
There was no cohesive strategy to unite the factions. Greed. Power. Money. I even went to my MPP and said I would drop out if he switched parties and began voting with his conscience as would be allowed within our party. He declined, which told me that he was after a pension and a salary and not God’s will for our province.
I believe that if there had been a little more give and take, a very strong political party could have emerged that would have been extremely lethal to the Ford campaign. I believe that division was sown into the ranks. I know those who identified where it happened. But there was sufficient selfish ambitions that got in the way so that we became ineffective.
America. You don’t have a perfect presidential candidate. None are. Rally around Donald Trump and pray for him. Indeed. It is healthy and smart to identify where you are alarmed. Pray for those in particular.
DD
I remember when you tried to make a difference, Dan, and stepped up to run. It’s disheartening to hear that the quest for power and its accoutrements infected those you were disappointed to learn did not have the fervour for office for the good of their fellow countrymen….those you assumed were in it for the same reasons you were.
But that is politics, is it not. The same the world over.
We do that pray for him and our nation in terrible distress, good sir…and for you and your Canadian brothers sisters as well 🙏🏻
Great post! The democrats are the party of the mind numb robots or NPCs that only regurgitate what they are told and love to listen to ‘experts’ and that is very cohesive and beneficial to the democrat party. Hence at Kamala’s ‘events’ you see the freaks and now cat ladies in full force. All for one and one for all. We are the ones that are critical thinkers, from all walks of life, very diverse and we all want the country to thrive. But that means we have many disagreements, different ideas and thoughts on how to accomplish that. Political purism gets you no where and always ends up in a loss. We need a big tent to get by these cheating thugs. And we should be engaging and demonstrating what healthy debate is. We need that back. Recently I saw a clip of Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh doing a short debate on CNN (or MSNBC) on the environment from decades ago and I feel a bitter loss we don’t have that discourse any more. I’ve been shocked at how rude and really mean spirited some people have been for several years in comments on many conservative sites. I don’t even read many of them anymore. I think a big part of this is since we are so separated now you only interact with your tribe and it is easy for people to forget we are all on the same team.
Thank you as always ❤️ great food for thought.
Menagerie ❤️❤️
Thank you.
I wish I could share this, but I can not.
I am so very grateful for you and Sundance, and for all of the friends that gather here.
… perhaps much more than you could possibly imagine
This is well written and very timely. I see this admonishment as another way to posit Sundance’s guides to commenting.
While I resent the true trolls, it’s even more tiring reading through all the accusations, whether merited or not.
Thank you for the graph and the thoughtfully phrased reminder. In fact, thank you again for all your efforts in keeping this site useful and manageable.
While I resent the true trolls, it’s even more tiring reading through all the accusations, whether merited or not.
Long before I found CTH I sometimes spent time on the Free Republic site.
They used to have an acronym(?) that they used in response to the true trolls, as you call them (and yes, I can’t actually imagine how that judgment can really be made by any but a moderator).
Someone would post this one word: GAZE.
And then everyone would move on without comment.
At one point I think someone explained that GAZE stood for, but I could never remember.
It did certainly cut down on long strings of acrimonious and topic-busting responses.
Anyway, not suggesting it – just always remember it when the issue comes up (which it always does).
So sorry for that.
my 99 and a half year old daddy used to say “I am just a stupid human”
He has been gone for a year and two months now. I miss my parents.
We need to be nice to each other.
Scolding is harsh.
The only on who is right all the time is God. I’m not God.
Could you put this in the form of a syllogism? 😀
JK
👉For my part, “dawg” I’ve learned to dig deeper from certain comments and have grown in general understanding here at CTH. Try looking for why these commenters( particularly long timers) make the statements, questions, answers or debates regarding your comments or anyone’s comments. 👈
👌I’m also getting a little thicker skin regarding what I may perceive as a personal attack. Turns out sometimes I get a better perspective digesting and then hopefully getting clarity after my initial assumed”paranoia” by “them” and just maybe they’re not paranoid at all but experienced and skilled people in their areas of expertise. 👍
“maybe they’re not paranoid at all but experienced and skilled people in their areas of expertise.”
Well they certainly proved themselves not too adept at identifying enemy agents on a message board, so they evidently arent as smart as they think they are.
That’s exactly how I Trade futures, I observe what the market is telling me. I apply observation to everything in my life. It’s when I’m subjective is when I get burned.
As always Menagerie, a well thought out and timely post. Thank You.
Well written Menagerie!
I think He sums it all up here:
John 7:24 NIV
[24] Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”
https://bible.com/bible/111/jhn.7.24.NIV
Oh my, excellent reference!
BRAVO on bringing up Logical Fallacies.
( By ‘mathematical logic’, do you mean ‘Formal Logic’ ? A course that should be a requirement for ALL Bachelor Degrees. I took it. ).
When dealing with Discussion forums of ANY kind, it is important to ensure that the arguments are valid and presented in a logical manner.
Most often, Internet ( Social ? ) Forums are anything but, populated with mental midgets that have no training or ability to argue in a logical, civil manner.
I use the Logical Fallacy rules all the time when reading ( * ) posts and papers. When dealing with forums that deal with any kind of politics in the USA you often run into users who practice Alinksy’s guide (**).. which are most definitely Logically Fallacious.
Anyone using Alinksy is fundamentally logically invalid. Such posts are easy to detect as quite often they use an attempt to ridicule (ad hominem) and non sequiturs (shiny (straw man) object, appeal to authority and so on).
When you point this out to them they get insulted because they are unable to reply in a cogent way to defend their discombobulated attempt to argue to begin with.
At that point I will just inform them they have proven my point, write down QED and move on. They have no clue.
(*) Per Thomas Kuhn I use an integrated gestalt to read and analyze posts.
(**) Most often posters are not aware of what they’re doing: they’ve been indoctrinated to do so. Their posts are always logically invalid.
–“Most often, Internet ( Social ? ) Forums are anything but, populated with mental midgets that have no training or ability to argue in a logical, civil manner.”–
Might this “mental midget” be so presumptuous as to ponder whether including that nomenclature is a wee bit at odds with healthy and logical argumentation in a “civil manner”?
(*) Did you use this same “integrated gestalt” to read and analyze” your own post? If so, kindly apply same and analyse your final (**) statement.
Thank you for your attention.
Well, we may disagree? 😉
No, in my opinion, a “mental midget” is someone who can not suffer to be intellectually challenged and takes everything personally…. We run into many of them on Social Media… people who should not be posting their opinion to begin with because their opinions are essentially worthless.
People who give their opinion as if it were a fact… devoid of any supporting information. When challenged they go Alinsky on you… fully logical fallacious.
Pretty much noise on the Internet.
And, btw, go read “The structure of scientfic revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn.
In so far as my final clause… there’s indeed a very important word missing… it should read: “Most often SUCH posters..” because I’m referring to the mental midgets that apply Alinsky without realizing it.
Are we OK now?
Thank you for this brilliant, insightful essay. Melania was never the subject of a single national women’s magazine article that I’m aware of and there are many, many Republicans who will be passed over for richly deserved honors simply because the Democrats control just about every major national award. Whether it’s Nobel Prizes, Oscars, Pulitzer Prizes, Emmys, Tony Awards, Grammys etc. etc. etc. When you choose to support President Trump and all that he stands for, you give up things you shouldn’t have to.
Are richly deserved honors an “Appeal to Tradition” logical fallacy?
Matthew 10: 16
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
The self appointed “Psyop Rangers”.
Yeah, Boogy, why provoke? I know your situation, but good grief, when you stir sh!t it stinks for all of us.
Dawg, that seems weird from the two posters you mentioned, because I read their posts and I find them to be quite intelligent. Only a retard would believe Crooks was the shooter because they saw it on tv. I agree with you it was probably Yearick on the roof, but I don’t believe he got a single shot off. There were likely 5 shooters, one or two of them shooting suppressed rounds at the counter snipers who took fire and shifted their positions. John Cullen does good work analyzing this fro cell phone videos. Now we get the weird audio redacted body cam vid from the local cops. They cleaned up all the evidence immediately, hell a FBI agent was hosing off the roof a few minutes after pit happened. Anyone thinks Crooks was the shooter and the lone shooter at that, probably believes Steven Paddock did just what the FBI and the Las Vegas sheriff told them he did. I digress, but only a retard would believe the official narrative at this point. All the best
Being intelligent and being intolerant are not mutually exclusive, are they?
“I find them to be quite intelligent.”
I’ll speak in general here, not talking about any poster specifically. Many people will seem intelligent when you agree with them completely. And when one sees them using bad logic and abusing others, the tendency is to not notice the obvious, because the target has a different view from yours.
But what I found from experience on different forums, if you disagree with these seemingly intelligent people’s orthodoxy and bring some uncomfortable facts and strong reasoning they are not prepared for, then you find out how easily rattled and shallow they can be, when they start with ad hominems and their arguments quickly disintegrate. ‘But they seemed so knowledgeable and intelligent before…’ With time you discern a pattern with these types and it won’t seem weird anymore.
Yes I found it weird too, but not because of any previous engagement with them, but because on its face, it was just weird to start accusing someone of such a thing, out of nowhere based on literally nothing.
And you may want to read my comment again, because you misinterpreted it.
Only a retard would believe ANYTHING just because they saw it on TV. And I agree, only a retard would believe the official narrative.
But all of the evidence points to Crooks taking the first 8 shots, local LE taking shot 9, and SS sniper taking shot 10.
The analysis by John Cullen or anyone else does not DISPROVE any of that.
The body cam video is not weird, the audio simply wasnt on until he turned it on when he was loading his AR.
I think Crooks was the lone shooter, and he was led there to do the dirty work, by some faction within the US government. There is a lot of precedent for that, including recently when the FBI literally escorted the shooter to the site, as mentioned by Sundance just the other day….
Do you ever ask yourself if you should follow Sundance’s guidelines for comments regarding off topic comments? Just asking.
????
I was responding to a response to my initial comment. And in that comment, I was giving an example of using logic and reason to avoid the logical fallacies that your post is about.
Good analyses here tht conclude there were multiple shooters:
https://rumble.com/v592bhg-multiple-shooters-john-cullen-and-clay-martin-tpc-1538.html?e9s=rel_v1_a
Ever think about reading the Guidelines for Comments and observing them, especially number 1 and 2?
Yeah, I think about it. But my mind wand…. oh look a chicken!
My oh my.
Please Rawkstar go back and read the full post by Menagerie.
Your statements are shining examples of illogical conclusions.
Does it occur to you that 4 or 5 shooters would have sounded like a war zone (suppressed DOES NOT mean silenced)? People on scene would have noticed shots from that many directions? Plenty of audio recordings of the event.
Doesn’t it occur that you are appealing to authority (John Cullen) ? Is John Cullen an original source and what are his motivations for covering the material?
I don’t believe he got a single shot off is an empty assertion IOW an opinion…..evidence suggests otherwise. When you make an assertion like this the next thing that you need to do is back it up with evidence.
Doesn’t it occur to you that “because they saw it on tv” is a strawman? Don”t believe our lying eyes?
Finally labeling everyone who doesn’t share your exact opinion on this matter a retard reflects very poorly on you and is an Ad Hominem.
Please read the full post through again then reread what you wrote. Are you satisfied with it?
As for posters feeling bad when someone disagrees with you or points out flaws in your logic?
Get over it! That is the way we all improve and learn. No one here is right every time.
Hew to the facts and examine them closely to ensure you’re following evidence and not flaws.
Lot’s of posters on here disagree with John Cullens analysis because its partly opinion and not backed up by evidence.
Apologies for using this as an example but this is how posters here get their feels hurt. They shovel out opinions without a single lonely little fact to support their opinion.
Voltaire paraphrased quote: “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
The quote is widely attributed to Voltaire but actually it was created by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, a biographer of Voltaire. Indeed, the earliest instance of the quote occurs in Hall’s 1906 “The Friends of Voltaire,” a biography of the French writer and philosopher originally published under Hall’s pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre.
https://checkyourfact.com/2019/09/17/fact-check-voltaire-disapprove-defend-death-right-freedom-speech/
Great list of mental models Menagerie.
Farnum Street, writes about mental models. Should be in every school curriculum.
The Core Mental Models
More items…
Mental Models: The Best Way to Make Intelligent Decisions – Farnam Street
Farnam Street
https://fs.blog › mental-models
Farnam Street
Farnam Street
https://fs.blog
Feed your brain in 5 minutes every week, for free. · Explore Farnam Street Articles · Accelerated Learning · Mental Models · Decision Making · Reading Better.
ArticlesExplore Farnam Street Articles · Accelerated Learning · Mental …
Highly Rated ArticlesCreativity and the Necessity of Giving up Your Best Loved …
Mental ModelsFirst Principles – Your Circle of Competence – Inversion – …
About FSFarnam Street is devoted to helping you develop an …
Start HereStart Here. Welcome to Farnam Street (FS). If you’re committed …
More results from fs.blog »
Thanks Menagerie…
With all due respect, Ma’am I will add to your distinction of the Catholic Church and its Mass.
The division in the Church started immediately after the Council of 1962 – 1965. Some changes were slowly been made, but it was at this council that the Novus Ordo Church was born.
Many religious and lay people felt robed of their legitimate Sacraments and doctrine after those changes. The modifications were implemented in steps to not scare off the faithful and the clerics. But it is worthy of reminder that the final form for the doctrine, Sacraments, and discipline of the universal Church was canonized for the ages during the Sacred Council Of Trent (1545 – 1563)
That means that the council of 1962 – 1965 does not have authority to change what was be canonized centuries before. And that canonization was made out of necessity in the meddle of the confusion created by the reformation. No new doctrine nor Sacraments was approved at Trent. It just organized and clarify what was the true traditional doctrine and Sacraments and was new and not true Catholic.
The Mass approved at the Council of Trent is the true Latin Mass as celebrated from the Apostles onward.
The Extraordinary Mass was a transitional mix created during the Second Vatican Council of old and new elements with some Latin and some vulgar tongues, some positions and postures for the Priest dating back to two millennia and some changed elements.. That Extraordinary form is on its way out outlawed by Francis by the end of 2024.
The Ordinary Mass is the majority of masses said the world over, but are not the true Catholic Mass. And the same situation is so for the rest of the Sacraments.
Traditional Catholics viciously attacking the Novus Ordo faithful are not behaving any better than infidels fighting Catholics. It is a truly deplorable situation. And the same applies to Novus Ordo people denigrating Traditional Catholics for their way of worshiping.
It is a difficult situation for all in a time of much disorientation.
^^^^^^Failure to read the post. Failure to observe commenting guideline (don’t hijack a post, a specific request I made) and the perfect illustration of why I am almost alway guilty of logical fallacies with Trad Catholics.
The thing that really steams me is that there are those of us who have really dug into the Extraordinary form and not only attended numerous times, but researched, talked to priests and other Catholics, and are just as knowledgeable as you. I’ve spent years learning as much about my faith as I can.
And here you come making a statement like this.
Now this topic is closed on this post. Go find a Catholic blog and preach away. My example was to be a humble illustration of my own failures. Well, congratulations, danged if you didn’t get to have me jump in and prove the point.
“Do not tell people they don’t belong here because they disagreed with you.
Do not call them a troll because they disagreed with you.”
“Go find a Catholic blog and preach away.”
You must have a point you think you’re making. Seems to me, you keep illustrating the purpose of this post over and over. I asked everyone to not hijack this into a discussion on Catholicism.
If you want to have that discussion, there are tons of places to do so.
Every time I deal with Trad Catholics I come away struggling even more to just try to understand you guys and not think the worst. Every time.
You missed the point of the thread. You hijacked the thread for your own purposes.
The thread is Not a discussion or argument about different forms of Catholic worship. Menageries’ personal Catholic example was a confession on imperfect listening, understanding, and response – hint hint.
There is an open thread for all manner of discussion.
Menagerie’s example was bound to strike a cord with those of us who grew up with the Latin Mass. I attend Mass weekly in English in my community. In a 10 minute drive I could attend a Sunday Latin Mass, one community over, with a priest from my grade school parish. I don’t. But I miss it very much. There’s a lot of Catholicism on this site. Some quite traditional. I appreciate it. That’s all.
Not a Catholic
but
Menagerie’s humility is using herself as an example touched my heart and encouraged me, for discover I find myself with the very same types of struggles.
And to make a comment like this after specifically being asked not to? No respect. Don’t even start that way. You’re mudslinging.
I would not consider any idea of Stalin, Marx, or Hitler because of who they were.
Those accused of “slippery slope” fallacy use were right in their warnings against abortion,
r-rated movies, profanity, etc. Abortion was supposed to be rare. Now, it’s on demand, even
up to the moment of birth.
Sometimes there are only two options with no alternatives. Common sense should prevail.
In addition, I appeal to the authority of the Creator. There is none greater.
logical fallacy: only thing dems have
Bravo!
Well, here’s another example. I’ve had my differences and discussions with both commenters, but I’ve also had some good discussions with BK, and I have learned a great deal from him. If I just wrote off everyone who has angered me, there are some very knowledgeable people I wouldn’t learn from. If you’re a Christian, how many times have you read a Bible verse that you initially disagreed with, didn’t understand, or it made you very, very uncomfortable? And how many times have you finally found gold in those verses?
I never said I was writing anybody off.
solid, Menagerie.👍🏻
slippery slope (false extrapolation) is the one that pushes my buttons big time.
just because A is true, does not make B true.
one must prove B true on it’s own merits.
this post is a wonderful primer on civil discourse.
civil does not mean one must modify or abandon one’s point of view,
only that objections to a particular opinion be based on the opinion itself, not the person proffering it.
your scrupulous attention to this matter is most appreciated.
carry on!😁
Great post.
I have seen this come up on this site every time a discussion about Israel comes up.
Some argue for full support, no matter what. Some suggest if you are not fully onboard with everything Israel does then you must be an antisemite or a terrorist supporter.
Others say there must be a distinction between what some refer to as God’s chosen people and the current nation state of Israel as it exists today. I believe, it would be an honest statement to say the current Israeli government has every bit of corruption as our government. I further believe, to suggest otherwise, means you are a paid shill (Sarcasm….see what I just did there)
😁😄😂😉
Just….wow
The bastardized use of “THE LOGIC “ as presented by ARISTOTLE in our Judiciary. The arbitrary use of the Syllogism with out the use Univocal Terms has led to the use of Precedence and arbitrary rulings. The Supreme Court not bound by Precedent should by necessity should have a prerequisite of taken “THE LOGIC “ and not only me memorize it but fully versed in its use. This should be demonstrated before being allowed to assume office. Just as we learn the multiplication tables by rote the should “THE LOGIC” should be by the Justices. Along this line Federal Judges should be required to Memorize our Constitution as a prerequisite.
Great post. I’ll repeat myself here. There are only two other people that I agree with almost all of the time. They are me and myself. I’ve always enjoyed a good debate for what you learn, not just about the subject but about the other person and yourself.
Maybe I always I agree with myself, but I sure am proven wrong at times.
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
Hey I resemble that remark!
Logic should be required learning in America.
“I don’t have to approve of what you say, and I should not therefore decide that you are a bad person, a lazy thinker, or even not just a supporter of President Trump because you said something I don’t believe.”
This reminds me of something I believe is very important and often overlooked. One mistake people often make is to assume that when someone holds an obviously hypocritical position that person is being purposefully hypocritical. Perhaps that person is being hypocritical, but that does not mean he or she sees it that way.
A person may genuinely hold two contrary opinions, but have an internal rational which reconciles holding both. As an extreme example, someone may genuinely believe abortion is a “My body, my choice” human right yet also believe it is perfectly reasonable to support mandatory mass vaccinations.
I do not support either position. I vehemently oppose them, and believe expressing both at the same time is extremely irrational. I have expressed that opposition here for years. However, I also believe belittling such thinking as hypocritical, disingenuous, calculating, doublethink, etc accomplishes nothing. Ultimately, all that amounts to is calling people names.
I would rather try to understand how such a person came to this position and why he or she holds it, even if that understanding only leads to a better grasp of how mass manipulation and ideological indoctrination work. Maybe if I can understand how that person came to bundle those ideas together, perhaps I can begin to discover ways to unbundle them. I certainly have a better shot of doing so than dismissing it as hypocritical.
This is not the understanding of post-modernism or moral relativism. It is it ideological dissection. We must acknowledge and understand the disease in order to treat it. Dismissing something as hypocritical and not worthy of studying prevents this, leaving the disease untreated and further spreading.
In the context of current events this is extremely important because “freedom” is being redefined and many, many people are being led to believe in a redefined freedom in which freedom does not exist.
Love this because it fits with “woke mind virus” and I’ve been stuck on banging my head trying to figure out how some people get certain unpleasant things into their brain and how to help them get it out although you say it much prettier. It also fits with Menagerie’s presentation for me.
The other issues of “trolls” and “belonging” here at the CTH community I leave to the others to debate. Ultimately, those matters are the final province of the site owner anyway. We are all just his guests here.
I only respond to one sentence:
“Consequently, I tend to not give Traditional Catholics the benefit of the doubt in my encounters with them.”
That’s a terrible shame. I do not believe in Vatican II and the liberalization of the Church that has followed. Principally because of the Third Secret of Fatima, the controversy surrounding its warning, and the conspicuous timing of its ‘release’ with that of Vatican II and the resulting modern Mass.
The beauty of the Latin Mass is that it is truly universal; no matter where you observe, anywhere in the world, it is always familiar and understood, regardless of the native language, and regardless of time or era. It is universal, as the word Catholic itself intends.
Any tension over Vatican II and the Latin and modern Masses should not be among the flock, but directed to the shepherds charged to lead us, who I believe have led many astray, as our Blessed Mother warned those three children.
By example, Archbishop Vigano has been most outspoken about the accelerating failings of the Curia and Holy See in recent years. The warned apostasy and rot has advanced the point of near schism across the Church, as there are now Priests blessing same-sex marriages, with the apparent encouragement of Rome. It has become a very slippery slope indeed from Vatican II.
The Vatican’s response to Vigano’s fair and well-reasoned criticism has been to excommunicate him.
So the Church’s own mistreatment of those who rationally disagree sets a contentious precedent and example for the flock.
But I would never treat you badly or disrespectfully for believing otherwise on these matters. In fact, it is a mark of traditional civility and maturity to disagree and discuss, without becoming disagreeable. I would simply point out what I mentioned above.
It is a disagreement of ideas, not of personages. I have no higher standing than you to say otherwise. We are equal in spirit and faith, in that we both still require His Grace to enter the Kingdom, no matter what we do here in the short time given.
It is still wonderful that we are all in our Lord’s House nevertheless. And that we can discuss such matters with civility and understanding. Our Lord sees us all, loves us all, and will make the final accounting and judgment.
I am disheartened that other fellow Catholics have treated you uncharitably. None of us merits that right, regardless of ideological vantage. For the essential reason above. We all are at the mercy of His Grace, no matter how right or wrong we may be. Each should act accordingly.
“Over the years, some of my most important choices in life have been based on information I obtained by talking to people I thought were wrong, or people I disagreed with. Sometimes those discussions led me to clarify and temper my own thoughts, improving my position and my opinions. Sometimes, they led me to investigate a different path.”
Based on that wise statement, I think you agree.
And I hope you reconsider your opinion of the pre-Vatican II and Latin Mass adherents.
If you are Catholic, I’d ask you, no matter which side of the divide you might be on, or perhaps even not relate at all, to look for the point here and not get sidetracked.
Please see that line in the post, and my reply above. If you guys just have to talk Catholic to me, especially regarding the Latin Mass (yeah, I know, that’s not a good term) email me. This isn’t the place and it is very much not the point.
Have a lovely day.
“some of my most important choices in life have been based on information I obtained by talking to people I thought were wrong, or people I disagreed with.”
If we only read people who think as we do, we will soon not do much thinking.
Fluency in Latin would help.
Understanding is reasonable with a few years of study. Fluency is a big step beyond.
In a lonely mountain valley
In the county of Tyrone
Lies one of Ireland′s hallowed spots
Deserted and unknown
But few who write historic tales
Or wield the poet’s pen
Can say with pride – I knelt beside
The Mass Rock in the glen
I′m proud that I am mountain bred this is my native place
These mountain glens have always been the stronghold of our race
‘Twas here our fathers earned the right to bear the name of men
When they kept the faith for Ireland by the mass rock in the glen
Our priests like wolves were hunted down
O God ’twas surely hard
That from the right to worship Thee
Thy children were debarred
But still they proudly bore
Thy cross Those simple mountain men
Were proud to share Thy Calvary
By the Mass Rock in the glen
No more on Corradinna Hill
The sentinel stands on guard
Our ancient foes, the hated yoghs
Have gone to their reward
And he who worships God in peace
May bless the fearless men
Who held the faith for Ireland
By the Mass Rock in the glen
God Bless the glens of Ireland
Every rock and mountain pass
′Twas those game glens that under God
Preserved for us, the Mass
And if the day should come again
When Ireland calls for men
She will not find them wanting
By the Mass Rock in the glen
God bless the glens of Ireland
And the Mass rock in the glen.
Overall Meaning
The song “Mass Rock in the Glen” is a tribute to an important part of Irish Catholic history. The song describes a hidden and deserted location in the County of Tyrone, where one of Ireland’s hallowed spots, a Mass Rock, literally, a flat topped rock used as an altar to conduct the Mass, still stands. The Mass Rock was used during the penal times when practicing the Catholic faith was illegal in Ireland. The people would gather in secret in the glens to attend Mass celebrated by wandering priests who risked their lives to keep the faith alive.
The lyrics describe the pride in being from the mountain glens where the struggle for religious freedom was fought and won. The song speaks of the persecution of the Catholic priests who were hunted down like wolves, and the determination of the simple mountain men who were proud to share the burden of their faith and the Calvary of Christ.
The song ends on a hopeful note, that if the day should come again when Ireland calls for men, they will not be wanting, just like the fearless men who held the faith for Ireland by the Mass Rock in the glen. It portrays the power of tradition and faith and the sacrifices made by those to keep it alive.
You see something happen and draw conclusions.
Thanx for the clarification, Sundance. Thought I was looking at the New York Times style guide, at first.
Just for clarification, Menagerie posted this thread, not Sundance. <smiles>
Thank you.
I took logic in college and found the formal process revolutionary.
And what do you find in the informal logic process?
How many here knew Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neal were friends who regularly played golf together?
They would come in from a round of golf and Tip O’Neal would stand in front of the press and tell them Ronald Reagan was starving the little old ladies to death by stealing their social security.
The press would ask President Reagan, he would cock his head, make a funny remark, laugh and move on.
What I learned from that is, you can’t take politics personally. You cannot change minds when you look down on people who disagree with you. They have the same right to their belief as you do no matter how crazy you think it is and their vote counts just as much as yours does.
When I was an election judge, people were amazed when I treated democrats with the same respect as I did republicans. As an election judge, politics are supposed to end 100 feet from the door. The judge is there to help people vote in whatever way they are entitled to vote and however they choose to vote.
Total disrespect for other people’s opinions and their right to those opinions is the reason this country is so divided today.
Left out “False Flag”…
Staying on topic is a lot easier when adding comprehension to reading. Sometimes, a second helping of reading and a few moments to digest is helpful before posting.
Anyway, an excellent essay Menagerie.
Great Article Menagerie, and well timed as far as I am concerned.
🙂
Thanks for taking the time to write it up~!
GOD Bless ya~!