"It is obvious to the most obtuse..." Thors Catholic Hammer Your Fallacy Is:
No True Scottsman (see below)"would suggest that you have never received"Thor's Rhetorical Trick #25:
The Passive Voice Authority.
Every time you start piling on those "would suggest you have..." you're floundering. Making your nonsense sound official
doesn't make it correct
, silly parrot."When the priest holds the host in his fingers he must place it on the tongue of the communicant."
See my earlier point about cooking, elsewhere. I'll repeat it here
for your benefit.--"A priest never once has to touch the tongue, either. It's entirely possible to place a "piece of food" onto a frying pan that's broiling-hot without touching the pan. Cooks do it every day."--
Misquoting you, the sheer ignorance you
spout would suggest that you have never done any cooking in your entire life."At all times his fingers are in very close proximity to the communicants tongue and lips."
Big deal. I can reach into a wok that's going under a 230C flame and place a pepper slice on the surface without ever burning myself. It isn't difficult at all. Maybe when you stop living at home and Mummy's not there to cook meals for her little parrot, you'll learn a few things.
That reminds me. When you start having to do your own laundry, you really should
separate colours from the whites."Only people who have never received on the tongue like you would make the..."
Here we go, more No True Scottsman Fallacy, coupled by more claims of "idiocy".
and THIS from the same little parrot who squawks about "vomiting levels of hatred and abuse" and "campaigns of hate"."All Catholics who receive on the tongue know this can happen."Thors Rhetorical Trick #62
: Fabricated Support.
Every time you start going on about "everyone knows", "most normal people recognize", "it's well understood by everyone" you're inventing support where you don't have it. Like always, you're making things up again.
In this case, Your Fallacy Is: Bandwagon (see pic below)"the levels of hatred and abuse you vomit at those who disagree with you support that conviction."
Does it now? Does it indeed? You think so? ;-)
Go measure your OWN Catholicsm by the levels of hatred and abuse YOU vomit at the Pope every day.@Rafał_Ovile
I am not "advocating Francis as pope"
. To advocate implies support.www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advocatewww.dictionary.com/browse/advocate
I don't like Pope Francis. Pope Francis is a bad Pope. Pope Francis is a very bad Pope. I do not
support Pope Francis, or his policies
, or his views
, and I never have
Christ taught that we should forgive our enemies "seventy times seven" By now I've repeated my lack of support for Pope Francis at least twice
How many times must I repeat "I don't support Pope Francis" before it finally
sinks in around here?
Thor, I can understand. He repeats it because he's a liar
. Telling lies
is what he does.
excuse? If you're intelligent enough to construct an argument, at least use a factually correct premise.
Congratulations, Crackers! It's "Two On Thursdays" in Fallacy Land!