It is rather scary and sad to think of so many people under the direction of a person who makes such bizarre comments.
This is where your arguments totally fall through the floor. You start tossing the insults and you lose any sense of credibility.
I can simply say that it’s sad and pathetic that your prejudice leads you to be willingly mislead and willfully ignorant.
It has nothing about coming unhinged. If you don’t like the topic, then don’t read it.
One of us is suggesting people actually give the man a fair hearing. You don’t want that. You simply want to verbally crucify him.
I don’t think I said agree. I said listen.
No. You attempted to compromise my position and reassure my credibility if I will just bow down and give homage to your position and adopt your prejudiced and ignorant views on Bishop Williamson. “All these things will I give you if you bow down to worship me.”
It’s very easy to ignore people who won’t call a spade a spade.
Then why don’t you ignore Bishop Williamson?
Bishop Williamson shoots himself and the SSPX in the foot each an everytime he comes up with one of his crazy theories.
This is the funny part, you keep pounding the table that his “theories” are “crazy”. Yet you are manifestly dead set against proving it. Your dogmatic statements about what is crazy is not intellectually honest. (or morally honest)
I actually think he has made some good points in some of his letters but I don’t suggest them to people because I don’t refer people to blind squirrels who find a nut once in awhile.
But to continue the analogy, the problem is you are ridiculously ignorant of squirrels. You don’t know the squirrel is blind (you’ve been told that) and you don’t know just how many stores the squirrel has.
What situation?
You refuse to acknowledge that you are ignorant of the exact facts concerning your complaints about Bishop Williamson. You won’t admit you don’t know that much because it undermines your ad homimen attacks against him.
Your hole is getting deeper. Maybe I just [disagree] with him. I read everything thing he said. If you think you need a PH.D for that one, you’d be mistaken. It was GOOFY. Maybe you just missed that.
It’s fine for you to disagree with him. But if your reason is “It’s goofy” that is simply not reasonable. “It’s goofy” is devoid of reason. It’s pure emotion. It has no logic to it. It’s un-intellectual. It has no foundation in reality.
It’s meaningless. This is your whole attitude in this discussion. You are the arbiter of what is or isn’t “goofy”.
You can’t make the distinction between your subjective emotional reactions and feelings from a fact.
And BTW, you just used one of the examples I’ve cited before. I’m not really sure how you can keep up with this “You’ve never cited an example”.
No. You said you encouraged people to read his letters to show how “loopy” he is. You’ve mentioned the Sound of Music letter but you haven’t proved it to be “loopy” or “goofy” as you’ve determined.
Also, you say you don’t recommend people to read him and then you do recommend people read him. I suspect you actually don’t read his letters at all and you don’t recommend them to people to see how “loopy” he is according to you.
You don’t know with absolute certainty that Jews were killed in gas chambers?
Absolute Certainty is impossible according to St. Robt. Bellarmine. We look for moral certitude.
Do you just have to be one of the Jews killed in a gas chamber to believe it?
What is your criteria for certitude?
There have been many excellent books on the holocaust.
Which ones have you read? Which ones would you recommend?
:whacky: Who exactly told you this? The seven year old boy next door?
It was commonly taught in schools in the 1970’s. Where have you been? Do some research and see what you can find out.
