Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Computers, Technology, Websites => Topic started by: Ladislaus on September 12, 2023, 05:44:42 PM
-
And just so that people don't accuse Matthew of playing favorites, I was banned for about a year. I was only unbanned because I e-mailed Matthew about some matter and he said he couldn't recall why I was banned, and I honestly couldn't remember either, and then he unbanned me. But I respect the ban, and if Matthew wanted to ban me again, there would be no hard feelings.
I get it. I can get frustrated, but my frustration is always of the logical and not emotional variety. I barely have feelings, to be honest. I'm more like a Vulcan, to a fault, and my wife has likened me to a Vulcan. There are many benefits to that, but also some drawbacks. In any case, I get extremely intellectually irritated by bad logic, faulty reasoning, fallacies, intellectual dishonesty due to agendas, confirmation bias, etc. That's why I get set off by posters like dxcat, where there's zero objectivity and painting everything as white and black, due to some jingoistic programming to which he's succuмbed, or Sean Johnson who likes to use ad hominems and various tactics that bear no resemblance whatsoever to actual logic. If people aren't presenting their argument where there's at least an implicit syllogism, I have no use for it. I think it was in one of the newer Star Trek series where there was the woman playing Uhura who was humming in a tense situation. So Spock notices this and tells her, "I find that the most effective way to relieve tension is by the application of rigorous logic." And my wife immediately burst out laughing, points at me, and shouts, "That's youuuu!". In any case, my posting persona bears little resemblance to my actual personality, since when I write/type, the only thing that matters to me is the content of what I'm posting, the substance. In real life, I'm a very quiet and soft-spoken guy, slow to anger, hold no grudges, and my speaking style is rather different than my writing style.
And it's not really a difference of opinion regarding subject matter that elicits my stronger reactions. I've exchanged very civil posts with BoD proponents such as Arvinger and ByzCat3000 and never had cross words for either one of them. I've exchanged civil posts with Globe earthers. But the ones I have no use for are those who simply ridicule the subject, use it as an ad hominem without having proven a thing or without even displaying that they have done even the most rudimentary amount of study into the subject, or the various Johnsonian tactics. So I've called some of these out explicitly ... which I needn't go into here. I know that Matthew agrees with Sean on some of the matters I get into heated arguments with the latter over, but I've never really exchanged cross words with Matthew, though I have expressed disagreements. That's because Matthew doesn't employ the same types of anti-logical tactics that some of these other posters employ.
And I think also that part of why some of what I write comes across as hostile is due to the speed at which I type. I've had people at work (when I wasn't remote) remark about my blazing fast typing. I am actually very busy, though I've been criticized for making an average of 7 posts per day, but my posts literally take an average of probably 3-4 minutes to type. For every one of these longer ones, like this one, I also make quite a few short one- or two- liners. And this criticism is also an ad hominem, coming from individuals who perhaps make 3-4 post a day here (compared to my 7), but then also make 4-5 posts on other forums. I've never been to these other forums. CI is the only forum I've been active on, other than a short stint on the Catholic Answers forum, from which I was banned within 2 days, and not for the reasons some individuals here want me banned. If I recall, one time it was for anti-Semitism and another time for being a sedevacantist. Each of these 2 stints on that forum lasted no longer than 2-3 days. I think I was motivated to serve as an apologist, as it were, for Traditional Catholicism, but they had no use from that there.
-
And just so that people don't accuse Matthew of playing favorites, I was banned for about a year. I was only unbanned because I e-mailed Matthew about some matter and he said he couldn't recall why I was banned, and I honestly couldn't remember either, and then he unbanned me. But I respect the ban, and if Matthew wanted to ban me again, there would be no hard feelings.
I get it. I can get frustrated, but my frustration is always of the logical and not emotional variety. I barely have feelings, to be honest. I'm more like a Vulcan, to a fault, and my wife has likened me to a Vulcan. There are many benefits to that, but also some drawbacks. In any case, I get extremely intellectually irritated by bad logic, faulty reasoning, fallacies, intellectual dishonesty due to agendas, confirmation bias, etc. That's why I get set off by posters like dxcat, where there's zero objectivity and painting everything as white and black, due to some jingoistic programming to which he's succuмbed, or Sean Johnson who likes to use ad hominems and various tactics that bear no resemblance whatsoever to actual logic. If people aren't presenting their argument where there's at least an implicit syllogism, I have no use for it. I think it was in one of the newer Star Trek series where there was the woman playing Uhura who was humming in a tense situation. So Spock notices this and tells her, "I find that the most effective way to relieve tension is by the application of rigorous logic." And my wife immediately burst out laughing, points at me, and shouts, "That's youuuu!". In any case, my posting persona bears little resemblance to my actual personality, since when I write/type, the only thing that matters to me is the content of what I'm posting, the substance. In real life, I'm a very quiet and soft-spoken guy, slow to anger, hold no grudges, and my speaking style is rather different than my writing style.
And it's not really a difference of opinion regarding subject matter that elicits my stronger reactions. I've exchanged very civil posts with BoD proponents such as Arvinger and ByzCat3000 and never had cross words for either one of them. I've exchanged civil posts with Globe earthers. But the ones I have no use for are those who simply ridicule the subject, use it as an ad hominem without having proven a thing or without even displaying that they have done even the most rudimentary amount of study into the subject, or the various Johnsonian tactics. So I've called some of these out explicitly ... which I needn't go into here. I know that Matthew agrees with Sean on some of the matters I get into heated arguments with the latter over, but I've never really exchanged cross words with Matthew, though I have expressed disagreements. That's because Matthew doesn't employ the same types of anti-logical tactics that some of these other posters employ.
And I think also that part of why some of what I write comes across as hostile is due to the speed at which I type. I've had people at work (when I wasn't remote) remark about my blazing fast typing. I am actually very busy, though I've been criticized for making an average of 7 posts per day, but my posts literally take an average of probably 3-4 minutes to type. For every one of these longer ones, like this one, I also make quite a few short one- or two- liners. And this criticism is also an ad hominem, coming from individuals who perhaps make 3-4 post a day here (compared to my 7), but then also make 4-5 posts on other forums. I've never been to these other forums. CI is the only forum I've been active on, other than a short stint on the Catholic Answers forum, from which I was banned within 2 days, and not for the reasons some individuals here want me banned. If I recall, one time it was for anti-Semitism and another time for being a sedevacantist. Each of these 2 stints on that forum lasted no longer than 2-3 days. I think I was motivated to serve as an apologist, as it were, for Traditional Catholicism, but they had no use from that there.
Hey windbag: You do realize that you hold several of the most absurd, heretical, and flat out stupid propositions in traddyland, right?
One thing CI can count on is you showing up to drop a turd in the punch bowl any time your narratives feel threatened.
Watching you attempt to take the moral high ground is like watching Stalin pet his dog.
-
:laugh1::laugh1::laugh1: And away we go…..
(https://i.imgur.com/OPinBzZ.jpg)
-
Thank you!
To answer your question: "No, because computers neither have souls, nor do they need a Day of Rest to free themselves from work to devote themselves more fully to the worship of God and the nurturing of the spiritual life."
Actually… (((How many steps did he take to get to the computer? Was the computer already turned on? Did he have to turn it on himself?…or did a shabbos goy turn the computer on for him?)))
:laugh2:
-
Actually… (((How many steps did he take to get to the computer? Was the computer already turned on? Did he have to turn it on himself?…or did a shabbos goy turn the computer on for him?)))
:laugh2:
We goy should hire Sunday Jews to do our work for us on Sundays.
-
Hey windbag: You do realize that you hold several of the most absurd, heretical, and flat out stupid propositions in traddyland, right?
One thing CI can count on is you showing up to drop a turd in the punch bowl any time your narratives feel threatened.
Watching you attempt to take the moral high ground is like watching Stalin pet his dog.
This exemplifies precisely what I'm talking about, but I'm going to make a resolution to ignore stuff like this and stick to the substance. Sean, rarely do you argue based on substance, logic, and reason ... with a few notable exceptions. But I'm going to let this pass and will stick more to the substance. I don't feel the least bit "threatened" since I know and can articulate exactly what I think about any particular subject and exactly why I believe in it. I have allowed myself to get irritated by this logical anti-pattern that you constantly put on display. And there was no attempt to take any "moral" high ground, though I clearly occupy the intellectual high ground compared to posts like this above. I was simply explaining that I have allowed myself to be irritated precisely by the types of posts you (and a few other posters) tend to make above here, so this response is a perfect illustration of precisely what I was referring to.
-
:laugh1::laugh1::laugh1: And away we go…..
(https://i.imgur.com/OPinBzZ.jpg)
Nah, the last post of mine entailed some introspection about when I get irritated by posts, and the last post by Sean was a perfect illustration of what I was attempting to explain. I'm done letting nonsense like that get under my skin. Sometimes it helps to dig into one's own thought processes to realize why I tend to get irritated by these. I'm not bothered by the insults, etc., but by the lack of anything resembling rational thought in things like the most recent post by Sean. I'm just going to start ignoring stuff like that rather than dignifying it with a response.
Nevertheless, the charge of heresy is pretty serious, so I'd be interested in knowing what heresies Sean accuses me of holding, besides the "Feeneyism" that he considers a heresy. He's never demonstrated that it is, but just keeps saying it, just like he keeps gratuitously saying that the Sister Lucy impostor theory is absurd and ridiculous, dismissing all contrary evidence with the wave of his hand, yet unable to make any rational points in support of his case.
-
Sean, rarely do you argue based on substance, logic, and reason ... with a few notable exceptions.
Seconded.
-
Hey windbag: You do realize that you hold several of the most absurd, heretical, and flat out stupid propositions in traddyland, right?
One thing CI can count on is you showing up to drop a turd in the punch bowl any time your narratives feel threatened.
Watching you attempt to take the moral high ground is like watching Stalin pet his dog.
I think I figured him out…
(https://i.imgur.com/07REsO5.jpg)
In Sean’s childhood, he watched a lot of Bart Simpson episodes and learned to talk “suburban trash-mouth” like the jew script writers who made the Bart Simpson character.
Sean is the trad version of the cartoon punk, low life.
His superficial smart-aleck remarks are sometimes entertaining, but at the same time, it gives one the urge to smash him, to serve him a lesson in basic debate skills.
-
I think I figured him out…
(https://i.imgur.com/07REsO5.jpg)
In Sean’s childhood, he watched a lot of Bart Simpson episodes and learned to talk “suburban trash-mouth” like the jew script writers who made the Bart Simpson character.
Sometimes I wonder if he's doing it on purpose to elicit a reaction and mess with me. I'm going to resist the bait going forward.
-
I think I figured him out…
(https://i.imgur.com/07REsO5.jpg)
In Sean’s childhood, he watched a lot of Bart Simpson episodes and learned to talk “suburban trash-mouth” like the jew script writers who made the Bart Simpson character.
Sean is the trad version of the cartoon punk, low life.
His superficial smart-aleck remarks are sometimes entertaining, but at the same time, it gives one the urge to smash him, to serve him a lesson in basic debate skills.
Inky-
You were SOOO close to not needing pictures.
Do all your books feature thick cardboard pages?
-
Do all your books feature thick cardboard pages?
Those are my favorite also.
-
Sometimes I wonder if he's doing it on purpose to elicit a reaction and mess with me. I'm going to resist the bait going forward.
I think part of the problem is that you and Sean, and in fact most people on this board, hold more similar opinions than almost anyone you’d find out in the world.
the closer somebody’s general worldview is to ours, the more frustrated we get when they disagree with us on some specific point. For example, I’ve been in social situations over the years where I’ve debated about abortion with raging feminists, or the existence of God with atheists, or on Purgatory with Protestants. None of this really got under my skin.
last weekend I was at a wedding, where 90 percent of the guests were FSSP attendees. A few of them grilled me and accused me of being a schismatic, outside the church, etc. I got really hot under the collar about it. I think it is because I do generally consider these people to be devout and truth-seeking, if misguided.
When points of disagreement spring up here, not to trivialize them, but maybe it can be refreshing to remember that broadly (maybe very broadly) speaking, we are all on the same side…and hey, we may end of sharing cells in some sort of Covid cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ one day ;)
-
... FSSP attendees ... grilled me and accused me of being a schismatic, outside the church, etc.
I'd just tell them that they were outside the Church, belonging to a non-Catholic religion.
-
traddyland
.
This is an offensive and derogatory term for the Catholic Church.
-
hold more similar opinions than almost anyone you’d find out in the world.
There is no way to reconcile FE with this
-
I recorded the fight on PPV. It was a good fight. Here's the transcript of what went down in case anyone doesn't want to pay to watch...
(Ladislaus comes to the ring wearing his classic bath robe and is oiled up and smoking a cigar.)
(Sean Johnson comes to the ring wearing a leather jacket, some blue jeans, and a ball cap that says "NY" on it.)
(The 2 stand toe to toe and are in each others face. Sean towers over Ladislaus but Ladislaus is not intimidated.)
(Ladislaus blows a puff of cigar smoke in Sean Johnsons eyes.)
(Sean Johnson is upset and pushes Ladislaus and Ladislaus teeters to the ropes.)
(Sean Johnson then proceeds with stiff forearm shots to Ladislauses chrome-dome.)
(Ladislaus takes 15 points of damage from the onslaught. Lad 85/100 health remaining.)
(Ladislaus shakes it off and proceeds to kick Sean in the "junk" but Sean backsteps a little bit and Lad doesn't get all of it but Sean takes 20 points of damage. Sean 80/100 health remaining.)
(This infuriates SJ as he may want more children some day and socks Lad right in the nose. Lad takes 20 points of damage. Lad 65/100 health remaining.)
(Lad, finished with his cigar proceeds to put it out on SJ's face and connects! SJ takes 30 damage points. Sean 50/100 health remaining.)
(SJ flicks some of the embers and ashes off on Ladislaus and since Lad is oiled up he catches fire! Lad takes 35 points of damage from the burning. Lad 30/100 health remaining.)
(Lad quickly put the fire up and is now "hot" with anger. He goes into a frenzy and just starts swinging. Some hits connect. Others do not. Sean takes 20 points of damage. Sean 30/100 health remaining.)
(Both men tired and spent but they proceed to crack skulls against each other in the next exchange and both crash to the canvas. THUD! Both Lad and Sean take 30 points of damage. 0/100 health remaining for both men.)
(Both men are laid out. The ref is counting....1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8....9...both men are stirring......but it's too late.....10!)
(Both men are considered Knocked Out and the fight ends in a draw.)
-
Ah, my fighting days are over. I've made the determination to turn over a new leaf and just let certain types of comments pass without response.
I didn't actually start this thread. This post was made inside another, but Matthew kicked it out for thread digression, though I didn't start the digression either. Lest people think I'm arrogant enough to start a thread about myself. It was an exercise in introspection that helped me realize why I tend to go off on certain individuals here, that is has to do with my aversion to illogic.
-
Ah, my fighting days are over. I've made the determination to turn over a new leaf and just let certain types of comments pass without response.
I didn't actually start this thread. This post was made inside another, but Matthew kicked it out for thread digression, though I didn't start the digression either. Lest people think I'm arrogant enough to start a thread about myself. It was an exercise in introspection that helped me realize why I tend to go off on certain individuals here, that is has to do with my aversion to illogic.
No, it’s not your aversion to illogic, but to reality, which causes your poor behavior:
Because you cannot cope with reality, you have created an alternate universe: One which is flat; has a popeless church, a church which can’t translate voto for 500 years; teaches errors on salvation in its catechisms; one in which gravity remains unproven; and so on.
When your fantasies are dismissed as being unworthy of discussion, you react poorly, feeling your alternative reality threatened, the risk of reality returning causing an unpleasant discomfort.
So “fake Lucy” away, but don’t pretend to be a lover of logic.
CI is your treehouse, where you get to escape to the world of make believe.
-
No, it’s not your aversion to illogic, but to reality, which causes your poor behavior:
Because you cannot cope with reality, you have created an alternate universe: One which is flat; has a popeless church, a church which can’t translate voto for 500 years; teaches errors on salvation in its catechisms; one in which gravity remains unproven; and so on.
When your fantasies are dismissed as being unworthy of discussion, you react poorly, feeling your alternative reality threatened, the risk of reality returning causing an unpleasant discomfort.
So “fake Lucy” away, but don’t pretend to be a lover of logic.
CI is your treehouse, where you get to escape to the world of make believe.
Sean, all of these positions have been articulated based on actual evidence, including the Fake Lucy problem. I watched Niles' video on the matter and it was rather pathetic and did absolutely nothing to debunk the evidence Dr. Ch has accuмulated from actual experts, Niles' 5 minutes of perusing WebMD notwithstanding. Niles' chief argument was that these experts did not take into account the effects of aging, and her claims were absurd. Or, even more laughably, that these experts were unaware of how a face can look different due to smiling or other facial expressions. I quoted from the experts' docuмents where they clearly took that into account (as if they were stupid enough to overlook something like aging). In fact, one of the experts went through a list of discrepancies, dismissed some that could be attributed to aging, but then solidly backed certain aspects of physiognomy that could not be explained by aging. These experts spent their lives studying such matters, and their opinion has a lot more weight, when asserting that X, Y, or Z could not have been caused by aging. Basically, Niles was lying and she openly expressed that her agenda was to legitimize the Conciliar Church. So this is what I based my conclusions on. You, on the other hand, continue to hurl ad hominem arguments like ...
So "fake Lucy" away, but don't pretend to be a lover of logic.
That is your rebuttal to the point I make above, and made before while citing evidence from the docuмents posted by Dr. Ch?
Please explain why you accept Niles' claim (Niles, who admitted that she gleaned all her expertise from WebMD) that these discrepancies could be caused by aging when I cited evidence from the ACTUAL experts where they clearly distinguished between factors that could have been caused by aging and those that could not. Some of them are considered the world's top experts and have been called to testify in dozens of court cases. You have a plastic surgeon who absolutely knows about the effects of aging, and who called them out in his evidence, despite the fact that Niles lied about it and claimed they did not?
-
So this exemplifies again what I've been talking about and what I have found so irritating. I can post several paragraphs laying out the arguments, and Sean typically responds with insults and ad hominem attacks, but never posts anything of substance. In order for him to join the argument on a rational level, he would have to explain why the experts in Dr. Ch's evidence were wrong.
He's accuмulated a long list of such points that he uses to hurl insults at me, uses them as mockery and ridicule, employing the very tactics that the powers that be use to silence "conspiracy" theorists, deriding them as kooks, tin-foil-hat-wearing morons, and the like.
But instead of getting irritated, as I have been, I'm simply going to call him out when he's doing this. That's actually the best response to irrational attacks such as the ones Sean makes, to simply call them out. I'm going to make a post here listing all of the Sean Johnson irrational/illogical tactics (a logical anti-pattern) and whenever I see him employing them, I'll simply call out "Johnson Tactic #7) with a link to the list.
Be careful, Sean, because these are the tactics they use to vilify Bishop Williamson, deriding him as a nutjob over cօռspιʀαcιҽs like 9/11 and the h0Ɩ0h0αx. Do you believe in the h0Ɩ0cαųst, Sean? Do you believe that 9 Arabs with box cutters who couldn't pass Cessna flight school, yet engaged in maneuvers with complex aircraft that left veteran pilots in awe, caused buildings to collapse at freefall speeds into their own footprints, including on that wasn't hit but just had a small fire in one corner, that they pulled off 9/11? Because one could ridicule, mock, and deride you in the same way over those conspiracy theories that YOU happen to hold.
-
Sean typically responds with insults and ad hominem attacks, but never posts anything of substance.
Sometimes he does, but typically he doesn't have the patience to.
In order for him to join the argument on a rational level, he would have to explain why the experts in Dr. Ch's evidence were wrong.
Yep. And Sean never will.
-
Leave the past in the past. Start tomorrow new in Jesus Christ.
Douay-Rheims Bible (https://biblehub.com/drbc/romans/3.htm)
For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. Romans
-
Leave the past in the past. Start tomorrow new in Jesus Christ.
Douay-Rheims Bible (https://biblehub.com/drbc/romans/3.htm)
For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. Romans
Solid advice. Solid source.
If Gladius Veritatis and I can patch together a semblance of civility, as we have, I am sure it is possible for other men to do similarly.
It is not necessary to concede matters of objective truth.
I think we are fast approaching the time when we will need men to share our foxholes, some of whom will not be clones of our own opinions. This war will be fought in both the spiritual and temporal world and we need each other in both realms.
ZOG is already baring Satan's teeth at some of us. Get wired properly on all counts.
-
Solid advice. Solid source.
If Gladius Veritatis and I can patch together a semblance of civility, as we have, I am sure it is possible for other men to do similarly.
It is not necessary to concede matters of objective truth.
I think we are fast approaching the time when we will need men to share our foxholes, some of whom will not be clones of our own opinions. This war will be fought in both the spiritual and temporal world and we need each other in both realms.
ZOG is already baring Satan's teeth at some of us. Get wired properly on all counts.
“Never let the past get in the way of the future.”
-
I think we are fast approaching the time when we will need men to share our foxholes, some of whom will not be clones of our own opinions. This war will be fought in both the spiritual and temporal world and we need each other in both realms.
Once the easy life comes to a complete halt, we will certainly see change in people, good and bad... I hope what I quoted from you here becomes more possible as a result of forced reality.
-
I'd just tell them that they were outside the Church, belonging to a non-Catholic religion.
Is that actually a belief that you have though (that “FSSP attendees, in general, are outside the church) or is this more of a petty “if he calls me a schismatic I’ll call him one” type of thing?
(since tone is hard to read online, the pettiness thing isn’t an accusation)