The future of this blog

I originally started this blog as a way to document my comments to Candy's blog, since she would not allow comments that tried to explain or defend the Catholic faith. I also started a boycott of her homemanagement binder in protest of how I believed Catholics were being treated on her blog.

In recent weeks Candy has change the theme and focus of her blog and I see no reason to keep this one going.

I will leave it up until labor day and then I will change the settings to invitation only. it will essentially be in a state of limbo, ready to be revived if the need arises.

In other words, I am perfectly willing to let my part of the feud go for now. I even took the boycott down on my main blog when I changed the template.

I reserve the right to bring this blog back if I find it necessary, but hopefully that won't be the case.

Answering Amy

Hey, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I have no problem with taking it Amy. Bring it on.

Even after we ended our 'discussion' you continued to come to my blog and read what I had posted, leaving your comments which I did not read,

And you refused to publish them. Fine. I quit commenting. As I mentioned below I haven't even thought about you for over a month.

until I happened on a link through a search engine to your Candland blog, and found that you were using this page not just to list your comments to Candy (which was your defense when I said it was wrong to set up a site just to tear someone else apart)

Oh please Amy, show me one placed where I have "torn" anyone apart. I simply disagree with Catholic bashing. End of story. I have in fact frequently praised Candy's homemaking and homeschooling ideas. Those were what brought me to her blog in the first place. So let's drop the accusations of attacking character. It never was about that and it still isn't.


but also to me.

Yea well since we "met" through Candy's and my original comments to you were about her blog it seemed fitting. It's not like it was a big secret.


So there were all those comments I had deleted, along with another post on your catholic year page aimed at a woman where you blaringly use the tactics you accuse her of in the very same sentence!

I wouldn't even attempt to try and diagram that sentence Amy. I get that you're ticked that I didn't let my comments to you sink into oblivion but chose to document them here.


Your attempt to back-peddle is amusing, though. Maybe you need better definitions of these terms.


Oh hardly. Your attempt at applying logical fallacies, was highly amusing. I enjoyed it immensely.


And now you want me to leave you alone.


Well it's your choice obviously. But it you continue to write about me I have no qualms about answering on this blog. I can even add your picture above if you wish.


Isn't that what Candy has been asking you to do for how long?

Come to think of it, I don't think she ever has. But if you were a tad bit more observant Amy, you would have noticed that I haven't posted about her at all for the past ten days and I will continue to do so unless someone decides to stir the pot.


Wasn't that the message I was conveying when I ended the discussion, saying I wanted nothing to do with your blog, and refused to read your comments?



LOL! and yet you spent quite a bit of time digging through the blog to make add to your rant! You refused to read them- and then you steeped yourself in them!!

Did I hit a nerve? Why the sudden change?

I was just surprised to see that you were holding a grudge for so long! WOW!

Amy, my answer is here
Let's just agree to disagree leave each other alone. Stay away from me, stay away from my blog and I will be happy to return the favor.

I have been trying to refrain from taking poor debaters to task simply because to do so gives them the idea that their approach bears merit. That said, I am going to do so anyway on this point because it is blatantly obvious when one person is being hypocritical, accusing the opponent of tactics while also employing them, completely nullifying the topic in question for many people, and this debate happened to be over something I thought was a valid point (better stated by other writers). So here are the definitions of some of these terms and examples of them being used by the accuser:

Wow Amy, you've certainly become bitter! I can't believe you've been chewing on this for six weeks or more!

Argumentum ad Nauseum- constant repititon of a statement to the point of nausea.

"As I have said probably at least ten times now..."

Stating something over and over again doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it false either. Sometimes when SOMEONE IS NOT LISTENING TO YOU you end up repeating things a lot. Doesn't make it false. Probably makes it a waste of time though.

False dichotomy- giving one extreme or the other, not allowing for any other possibilities, either/or and if/then arguments that cannot be proven.

"If you really had the truth, you would not be so afraid to post comments that disagree with you"

Wrong definition of fale dichotomy: The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities. The arguer then goes on to show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his preferred conclusion must be embraced.

Appeal to the masses- asking a question of the audience in order to try and show that the majority of people agree and therefore the statement is true.

"Amy says she did not see anything that was persecutation to Catholics in the post. Let me point them out...I'll let you the reader decide if my assessment of this was correct or not."

Well not quite. Here is a definition of appeal to popularity. Also here.

The example Amy cites is not an appeal to the masses, because I am not encouraging the reader to necessarily take my side. In fact it is quite two sided saying that Amy sees it one way, I see it another, and leaving it to the reader to make up his/her own mind.

Ad hominem- attacking the character of the opponent rather than the question raised.

"It is becoming clear to me Candy that doing actual research is not one of your strong suits."

Yea, that was a subtle ad hominem. Does not mean that it is not true however.

Straw man- creating a false scenario and then attacking it.

"However if she had openly bashed the overweight, blacks, Jews, gays, the retarded, pick a group, I doubt that many would stand for it. Why then is it okay to bash Catholics or to allow that kind of bigotry to stand just to get a few household hints that could just as easily be gleaned elsewhere?"

Not even close. This was an analogy which is not a logical fallacy. The analogy was between other targeted groups such as blacks, Jews, gays, the retarded and Catholics. Analogies are very helpful and widely used in discussions and debates. No strawman here.

Red Herring- changing the subject by addressing something separate from the point in question.

"The Bible warns against uniting with those who teach a false doctrine (Matthew 7:15-20)" ANSWER, "Let's look at the fruits of the Catholic Church. It is the most consistent pro-life Church, holding the line against contraception, abortion, divorce; upholding family values; largest charity providing food, clothing, medical care throughout the world. It is also the oldest Christian church."


No red herring here either and I was really surprised that Amy didn't get this. She charges a false doctrine. My answer was to use the "by the fruits you will know them verse." In other words, the Catholic church bears good fruit, so it's doctrine cannot be false.


Ad hominem AND appeal to the masses- trying to get the majority to agree with your character assasination of your opponent.

"Is it just me or was that kind of a b----y little thing to say?"


Guilty. Doesn't mean it was wrong. In my opinion it was a bitchy little thing to say.



Appeal to ignorance- an argument that tries to prove a point by citing the lack of proof to the contrary or the opponent's inability to prove a point.

"I will note however that I do not expect to find that level of sophisticated discussion in this part of the blogosphere. Seeking to counter misunderstands and untruths is about the best I can expect to do here, and even then just have those represented in the search engines."

Nah... the first sentence was clearly an ad hominem attack Amy. The second setence was just a statement of my intent which was true. My intent was to counter misundersanding and untruths, I didn't expect to be able to do more, and I was counting on the search engines!

Argument from omniscience- when the presenter pretends to have omniscient knowledge of the opponents thoughts, beliefs, or motives.

"I think she is saying this because she is way over her head on the issues."


...I like to think of it as inductive reasoning. Sometimes people do things and it's not rocket science to figure out why.

Attack from authority- when the presenter counters an opponents statements as being disrespectful or contrary to whatever presumed authority or leadership would suit.

"Well I'm a bit older than most of you gals. I was raised to be gracious when someone is talking to you."

Good call. It was also a subtle ad hominem in that I was inferring that you were not being gracious.



See if you can figure out which fallacy each of the following would fall under:

I have no clue how YOU would attempt to categorize them Amy. But thanks for highlighting some of my best stuff!



"Well then Amy, my accusation is true! You do have issues with the orthodox and the Anglicans as well. Perhaps you were just unaware of it!"

"We did not really have a debate . She listed her problems with Catholicism. I engaged them. She countered. I offered further explanation and even did so on my blog, and she ends it as noted above. That's not a debate."

"So while I respectfully differ from your views, I cannot say we are part of the same body because a house divided against itself cannot stand (Matthew 12:25). We cannot be so theologically opposed and be part of the same triune church.", ANSWER, "
Is not the Protestant, nonCatholic, nonOrthodox branch of Christianity already deeply divided and splintered just among themselves? Not a question really, more of an observation."

"Well, how do you know that the 20 nuns had a total and complete understanding or that they were totally telling the truth? Why were they authoritative for you but a book by a practicing Catholic would not be?"

"It seems some of the people complaining about this site feel that they should be able to visit Candy's site for all of the household and baking tips and that it's all okay because gosh... they don't agree with everything she says! So that doesn't make them anti-Catholic."

"I think the people of Google are just a little bit smarter than she is and if they could offer that type of service, they'd have it up for every one now."

"...you're a regular over at Candy's. Would you tolerate her rhetoric if she were anti- fat people? Or what if she told mothers who mourned miscarriages to just suck it up and get over it? Would you find that to be equally as acceptable as Catholic bashing?"

"Perhaps the reason you don't think Candy is anti-Catholic is because you share her views...slurs against Catholics are tolerated by those in the Cult of Candy."

"I don't know how you can defend Candy and all of the stuff she says about Catholics, and then denies us the chance to respond to the charges, but not consider yourself anti-Catholic but okey dokey. If it helps you sleep better at night..."

"...it's not my fault if people don't read thoroughly. You certainly don't."

"...as you have yet to raise a child to adulthood, let alone mid elementary, jr. high or high school. Perhaps you should wait a year or ten before trying to speak so authoritatively on the topic."

"Not allowing comments is a sign of fear and insecurity."

A dilemma

Now you might have noticed that it has been rather quiet around here. Candy has blogged only on homeschooling and homemaking issues, two topics that I think she handles very well. I have no beef with her on either of those and I wish her much success on her blog if that is the direction she continues to go in.

My only gripe with her ever was the Catholic bashing with no room for input or correction for Catholics. That's it. As long as she stays away from that topic, I really have nothing to blog or say over here.


Most of you might remember Amy who blogs at trainachild over on blogger. She is a big Candy supporter and anti-Catholic. She and I had a discussion/disagreement a few months ago. She has an article up on her blog right now that is a deliberate attempt to discount many of the arguments that I and others have used in the past.

Ordinarily, I would confront her. Amy, like Candy doesn't allow confrontational comments on her blog - so it's basically a waste of time to do it.

I could blog about it here. However, Amy's blog is a personal blog. It gets very little traffic, and highlighting it just gives it more attention than it really deserves.

I'm willing to let it go unless someone is just aching to discuss these things and needs a place to vent. So what say you Visits to Candyland readers?


*******************
On second thought, I find it troubling that she has hung on this bitterness for weeks and weeks. I feel more comfortable just letting it drop.

I think Michelle Duggar is a sweet and holy lady and I wish her and her family all of the best!

I am glad to see that you are dropping the book reading. As they say I don't see any pulitzer's on Mr. Gipp's mantle any time in the near future. It is best to read something that is much more elevating and beautiful. Sam Gipp ain't it.

Taking a little break. Comments are basically off until I get back. See you on the flip side!

My contribution is here

Why don't you just let swylv just lead the discussion. She seems more engaged!