Oh, I don’t doubt it the numbers represent some people who wouldn’t even describe themselves as catholic, and a lot of people who would, if asked, describe themselves as catholic but who don’t really do anything involving the church. Then again, many of those lapsed American catholics would probably follow the Pope’s visit to America. I imagine the count of catholics is less deceptive than the count of the player of any given Facebook game, but I’m sure it’s more deceptive than, say, a count of people in the room with me right now.
I think that what’s refreshing about this pope is that while he might be “hating on” homosexuals, he doesn’t appear to actually hate people who are homosexual. That isn’t, as you say, all sweetness and light. It’s like being happy that while your racist grandma says things about “those” people at Christmas dinner, she doesn’t actually hurl slurs in the street. A small mercy.
Yes that is ad hominem. Do you know what is wrong with ad hominem? It’s a logical fallacy - that is, pointing out that the person saying something homophobic is being homophobic is not a refutation of the argument they are making. That is all that is wrong with ad hominem.
This would be obvious if you tried to spell out what was wrong with calling Kim Davis or the pope homophobic instead of quoting the name of a logical fallacy. For instance: “Whether or not Kim Davis is homophobic has no impact on whether the following reasoning is correct: [insert logical argument here].” Now, if you could actually insert an argument there, then there would be something to argue about.
Flawksy-Walksy, Play at rumpscuttle and clapperdepouch, Chevy, All sixes and sevens, Crimthink, Hepped up on goofballs
