------------------------------------------------------------------------ * G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S * ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enjoy your holiday in Goa. Stay at THE GARCA BRANCA from November to May There is no better, value for money, guest house. Confirm your bookings early or miss-out
Visit http://www.garcabranca.com for details/booking/confirmation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter has completely misunderstood my attitude, positions and views with respect to Hitler and religion, in general. I provide below brief responses to his misstatements. --- Peter D'Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Yes, and the source of information is a >"fundamentalist" or a group of "fundamentalists". >Unless, of course, answers.org is a google-like bot >that generates articles via computer programs. > Here is a definition of an ad hominem attack provided by Gilbert: "Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack." I did not attack "the character or circumstances of an individual who was advancing a statement or an argument". The source is a website. Pointing out the easily verifiable fact that it is a fundamentalist religious website is not a personal attack on an individual who was advancing a statement or an argument. Moreover, Fundamentalism is a well-recognized sect of Christianity, just like Catholicism. > > Nice attempt at deflection. Why mention that it is > fundamentalist at all if you're only concerned with >facts? > Because it is a pertinent fact, as I have demonstrated. > >Does this quote prove the influence of Catholic >teaching and doctrine on Hitler or, instead, Hitler's >influence with the Vatican hierarchy? > The quote was provided to show that the selective quotes which the website provided did not tell the whole story. In other words, one could not rest one's notions about the issue based on those selective quotes, as Peter exhorted us to do. One had to read the whole book, and other books on the subject. > >I'm still trying to figure out how someone so >self-obsessed and concerned about leaving his imprint >on history can be construed as a devout Catholic, >based on the above quote. > That quote was also provided to show that the selective quotes which the website provided did not tell the whole story. In other words, one could not rest one's notions about the issue based on those selective quotes, as Peter exhorted us to do. One had to read the whole book, and other books on the subject. > >"Unbiased" folk examine Catholic teaching on the one >hand, and Hitler's actions (and words) on the other, >and conclude that his alleged devotion to the church >of Rome was pure. Correct? > No. Hitler was a criminal with a devious, psychopathic mind. His religious beliefs or lack thereof had nothing to do with his atrocious actions. > >You almost make me think that I have a bias in favour >of Catholicism! > Does Gilbert know that Peter is not in favor of Catholicism? > >I have a perfectly fine understanding of what >fundamentalism is. I don't know why you bring it up >when the conversation is about Hitler. > Because Peter claimed that merely pointing out that a website is a fundamentalist religious one is tantamout to an ad hominem attack. > > SanTosh, you have clearly missed the entire point. > On the contrary, I think it is Peter who has missed the point. If he had read my post 4 years ago on Hitler, the link to which I provided in my last post, and my recent response to Jose in the present debate, he would have realized what my views on this issue have always been. > > Good luck to you on your crusade againt organized > religion. > The above statement is a clear demonstration of how Peter has completely misunderstood my position with respect to religion. People who know me or have understood (with intellectual honesty and without prejudice and/or malice towards me or towards what I am perceived to represent) everything I have written in this and other forums, know that I merely write in defense of the non-religious and religious minorities who are being targeted by the self-righteous, ideologically-driven crusaders. In every single case, I have only defended against the bogus charge that non-religious people are immoral solely by virtue of the fact that they are non-religious. Towards this end, I have also demonstrated the falsity of the underlying self-righteous, chauvinistic notion that followers of a particular religion are unquestionably moral simply because they are religious people. Cheers, Santosh _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org