C
clmowry
Guest
“The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.
Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source.
Both types of argument are fallacious.”
As someone pointed out on another thread as the number of posts on a CAF thread goes up the probability of someone using sexual abuse by priests as one of their arguments against the validity of the Catholic doctrine being discussed approaches 100%.
If you are going to measure the validity of a belief system by the behavior of the worst of its members and opt out of every group in which you can find a member that does bad things, what valid belief system remains?
Yes some priests have done some very evil things to children [and I believe they should be locked up for it for life] but have those of you who are so apt to bring this issue forward as a “proof” against Catholic beliefs ever considered the fallacy in your logic?
Even if we ignore the logical fallacy have you ever bothered to take your “logic” to its final conclusion?
“Priests have been guilty of sexual abuse, therefore I should reject Catholicism”
There are currently over 700,000 registered sex offenders in the United States [only a small percentage of actual sex offenders are ever caught]. The department of justice estimated in 2000 that there were as many as 500,000 pedophiles in the United States and that in 2000 1.3 million children had been sexually assaulted (that’s in one year alone.)
The largest demographic group (in total number and as a % of the population) is married men who molested members of their own family.
Do you conclude that you should therefore reject marriage and family?
The total number of priest accused of sexual misconduct (of all types) from 1950-2002 was 4,392. The police investigated 1,021 of those cases. 384 led to criminal charges and 252 were convicted.
The problem in the Catholic Church, which of course the Church should do everything in its power to eradicate, is dwarfed in total scope and frequency of occurrence in American society as a whole.
Why don’t you use this “argument” as a reason to reject being an American, or being a teacher, or being an atheist, or a police officer, or a Jew or a member of any other demographic group we can find in this vast population of perverts?
Yet over and over again this pops up as a “proof” against the Catholic Church.
Enough is enough on this. Let’s eradicate this arguement from the forum.
There must be some non-Catholics out there who agree with me on this. No?
Chuck
Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.
Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source.
Both types of argument are fallacious.”
As someone pointed out on another thread as the number of posts on a CAF thread goes up the probability of someone using sexual abuse by priests as one of their arguments against the validity of the Catholic doctrine being discussed approaches 100%.
If you are going to measure the validity of a belief system by the behavior of the worst of its members and opt out of every group in which you can find a member that does bad things, what valid belief system remains?
Yes some priests have done some very evil things to children [and I believe they should be locked up for it for life] but have those of you who are so apt to bring this issue forward as a “proof” against Catholic beliefs ever considered the fallacy in your logic?
Even if we ignore the logical fallacy have you ever bothered to take your “logic” to its final conclusion?
“Priests have been guilty of sexual abuse, therefore I should reject Catholicism”
There are currently over 700,000 registered sex offenders in the United States [only a small percentage of actual sex offenders are ever caught]. The department of justice estimated in 2000 that there were as many as 500,000 pedophiles in the United States and that in 2000 1.3 million children had been sexually assaulted (that’s in one year alone.)
The largest demographic group (in total number and as a % of the population) is married men who molested members of their own family.
Do you conclude that you should therefore reject marriage and family?
The total number of priest accused of sexual misconduct (of all types) from 1950-2002 was 4,392. The police investigated 1,021 of those cases. 384 led to criminal charges and 252 were convicted.
The problem in the Catholic Church, which of course the Church should do everything in its power to eradicate, is dwarfed in total scope and frequency of occurrence in American society as a whole.
Why don’t you use this “argument” as a reason to reject being an American, or being a teacher, or being an atheist, or a police officer, or a Jew or a member of any other demographic group we can find in this vast population of perverts?
Yet over and over again this pops up as a “proof” against the Catholic Church.
Enough is enough on this. Let’s eradicate this arguement from the forum.
There must be some non-Catholics out there who agree with me on this. No?
Chuck
