English FAQ + other qualifications Best quote from todays FB, applicable to me/this blog if you like:
It’s a basic error in logic to reject an argument because the person making it is a “hypocrite.” They may well be, but it has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of their claim, or the validity of their argument.
J. H. (Trad. Catholic like myself) [Blog ceased.]
Questions may be adressed to my guest book.
- Is this same writer as on MSN Group Antimodernism?
- Yes. Here is my blog dedicated to republish what I could save from its close-down in February 2009: click link!
- Did you have many profiles on that MSN Group? Wasn’t “Evil Messiah” one?
- I had the profile hans_georg1, since simple hansgeorg et c was not available. EvilMessiah was an atheist I met on a party (beyond reasonable doubt that identity is correct)who had complained that Christians are ready to start arguments but when put to it shirk answering. In that group, EvilMessiah was the one shirking debate, not me. I had to import debates from different message boards to get them there.
- Why would anyone want to debate with a wacko like you, geocentric, creationist, Trad Cath fanatic, believes in Crusades and Inquisition, hates Jews and Protestants, anyway?
- I believe in serious debate. [Update: debate does not mean personal attack as in what cluttered the thread mirrored here – click link – I gave you some taste of it, but concentrated on giving the arguments from the FB group.] I also believe that, beyond ethical common ground between different cultures in Christendom and before and East of it, or even South, North and West of it at times, beyond rejection of solipsism and other “all-is-illusionisms” serious debate is debating seriously, and debating seriously is debating where there is serious (not necessarily violent – as said!) opposition. St Thomas Aquinas answered the wackiest arguments (he also put his opponents’ arguments first in each article) because he was debating seriously. Nowadays a “wacky argument” is shrugged off with labels like “lunatic fringe”, “paranoid”, “noone can take that seriously”, “they thought so back then but now we all know” … (without defining “we all”, but it always means less than the total present population of the world). As I get or back when I got serious opposition from atheists, debating with them is debating seriously for me. As they get serious opposition (unless they shrug it off by labelling some arguments as not serious, as if that decided against their logic value) from me, not debating with me is evading at least one serious debate.
- What is the difference between a blog and a newspaper?
- Two: a paper’s printed version (now there are internet versions to most), as was also true of messages on message boards on MSN Groups, cannot be changed. On the blog I can change to edit or suppress. Once on MSN Groups, the message board, I made four spelling mistakes. I copied, pasted in to answer, changed and posted answer, then deleted original message. On this blog I do not need that, I can edit. The other is that there are less newspapers than books on the market, but more blogs than books. Books are a more independent and on average a more personal voice than newspapers, and blogs than books.
- Does this mean blogs are better than newspapers?
- On an average, neither better nor worse. But you will probably find better and worse blogs than any newspaper. Unless of course the worst newspaper is taken as worse than the worst blog by being taken more seriously or spreading its poison wider.
- What do you mean that a blogger is independent? Each man depends on his experience and on his prejudices!
- Exactly, but a blogger is free to express both unhampered, a newspaper redaction often enough has the Dawkinsite and the vaguely Catholic or not so vaguely Protestant side by side, neither being free to express his convictions, and therefore neither being free to argue his convictions from the news, therefore both refraining from angles of analysis. I am a Thomist. I will not promise to make every Dawkinsite analysis for Dawkins and his likes, but neither will they make every one of my analyses for me.
- But in the newspapers I see latest headlines?
- You rarely do that in my blog on usual subjects. But you do get my latest thrust against Chromosome number shifting by evolution or against Hobbes or against Einstein or Onfray (who is the French “Dawkins”).
- So if Sarkozy or Obama or Medvedev speak politics on their blog, are they more reliable than on press conferences that are then published in newspapers?
- They are more complete. They can be criticised from more angles. But ultimately as bound up with their usual teamwork as on a press conference. However if Obama blogs about his home life, Sarkozy about Carla Bruni’s music, or Medvedev about bear chases, they are independent if they have any life at all. And if non-politicians blog about politics they are as independent in politics as Sarkozy in music. Unless they tell or ought to tell you otherwise. My loyalties are stated as “pour Dieu et le roi” more precisely Roman Catholicism in Traditional theology and Louis XVI, both as not elected hence not ambitious, and as humane, he erased the Bastille, and of course as a Christian, dying because he and his Queen were against constitutional clergy, ultimately, and because they were against the war that became Napoleon’s “crusade for democracy”.
- Doesn’t that mean they are trying to be cute when they should be politically coherent?
- Yes, of course. And the cure is to be familiar with the cute blogs and see Obama is not a cuter daddy than other American daddies, Sarkozy not a cuter promoter of his wife’s latest CD than other promoters of wives’ CDs and Medvedev not a braver bear hunter than at least some bear hunters in Russian or otherwise Nordic lore (from 1700 and a decade on or so a Romanov and a Pfalz-Zweibrücken were struggling for dominance over Baltic Sea, and BOTH were brave bear hunters).
- Are you a flat earth geocentric and young earth creationist homeschooler?
- Part time home schooler. Other times mobbed in school. Creationist – definitely. Young Earth – dito. Geocentric – that is what the eyes keep telling me, I won’t discount their evidence as optical illusion until it is very much proven that is so. I am waiting … Flat Earth – no. Eratosthenes and the Phoenicians, Columbus and Magalhães have given pretty definite proof, theoretic and practical.
- Do you cherish Crusades and Iniquisition?
- Which of the Crusades? May I distinguish general war effort from war crimes? Like beating Azaña and the Commies from atrocities at Badajoz or Guernica in the “Last Crusade” (last, that is, not counting prayer crusades that were not wars in military sense, like Crusade for Peace 1946 or recent FSSPX Rosary Crusade)? And planned actions from actions decided without the Pope in the first and fourth Crusades (Urban II did not order massacre of Jerusalem, nor did Geoffroy de Bouillon, neither did the Pope order cheating the Byzantines about Antioch, and Innocent III forbade the attack on Constantinople)? What aspect of the Inquisition and you mean the one against Albigensians, or Roman, or Spanish? I do not consider them all wrong in every respect. I know for a fact that an accusation was not an automatic condemnation, that torture was in the regular procedure limited, that it was not carried out by the Inquisitors, that Bernard Gui who was considered harsh against Albigensians delivered about one in 20 sentences he gave in Toulouse (a total of 930 I recall) “to the secular arm” (45 or 48) which usually meant the stake, that the things that if serious and deliberate landed you at the stake and if considered nutty or immature in reflection to Inquisition’s long term prison, were very much fewer than what lands people in trouble with psychiatry nowadays.
- Do you hate Jews and Protestants?
- No, not all of them. I do consider Judaism a misfortune for the Jewish nation, as a not really Mosaic thing, and Protestantism a comparable misfortune in Christendom. I also consider some of the responsibles for their separations from Catholic/Orthodox Christianity or later relations to it as crooks.
- Aren’t you a Luddite? Why do you use the internet?
- Internet is more democratic as communication – see above – than mass production in economic relations. The ordinary counterpart of mass production is more like newspapers – see above – and the conunterpart of internet is more like water or electricity supply.
- But if you are against electricity … ?
- I am against depending on it for vital things. One can spend an evening with conversation or with one reading aloud without one candle per person. One can use guitars or violin rather than CDs and CD players. Look at my compositions if you play the guitar or violin by the way!
- Are not people who support teen marriages pedophiles?
- First, the “pedo-” of which a pedophile is a “-phile” ceases to be such at puberty. Greek paes (παις) means school child age boy or possibly girl.
- Second, it is a question of supporting decent conditions for teen pregnancies, as in being against teen abortions but not against teen births.
- Third, the victims of teen seducers would have been less likely to be victims if they had been married. And that often though not always means both in couple are teens.
- So you are not protected by some pedophile ring?
- I may very well be, by one that wants to discredit me.
- Or homosexual?
- One may smell due to lack of shower facilities, like being too late once in a while, or lacking a change of clothes, without being into such shitty practises.
Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6YoToX1vV to access the cached copy of this page