|
0 members (),
262
guests, and
26
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear Neil, You spelled "Slovak" as "Slovack." Gosh, but you Irish have such a way with words!  Your annoying brother, Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
Alex, Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominemad hominemad hominemad hominemad hominemad hominemad hominemad hominemad hominemad hominemad hominemad hominem Danger! Danger! The "ad hominem" police will get you. :p :rolleyes:  CDL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,084 Likes: 12
Global Moderator Member
|
|
OP
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,084 Likes: 12 |
Originally posted by Incognitus:
... "ethnos" has nothing in particular to do with a discussion about how many Patriarchates the Greek-Catholics should have. I thought 30 respondents was pretty good; then I looked at other polls taken in Town Hall over the past 4-5 months and saw much better numbers. (Granted, it is Lent and some folks have given up posting for the duration. That's a penance ?? :p ) Yuhannon identified a problem - Q. 10 requires one to commit to being (or planning to be) a member of a Byzantine Catholic Church (hey, it's a new recruitment methodology  ), making it impossible for non-Byzantines to vote - not my intent. Solution - those who neither are nor plan to become Byzantine, select 'Georgian'. Some selected results to date:
There should be 2 Patriarchs: 1 of the Greek Tradition and 1 of the Slav Tradition
47%- 53%
If there were 2, the Melkite Patriarch should be Patriarch of the Byz-Greek Tradition
60%- 40%
If there were 2, a Ukrainian Patriarch should be Patriarch of the Byz-Slav Tradition
40%- 60%
If there were 2, Synod in each Tradition should elect the Patriarch of that Tradition
87%- 13% Respondents are: Byzantine Catholic -- 80% Other Eastern Catholic -- 3% Eastern Orthodox -- 7% Latin Catholic -- 10%
Ruthenian -- 47%
Ukrainian -- 23%
Melkite -- 13%
Italo-Albanian -- 7%
Georgian, Greek, Russian -- 3% each <21 -- 1% 21-35 -- 17% 36-50 -- 60% 51-65 -- 20% Not sure I see a lot of surprises here, except that I thought the idea of 2 Patriarchs, 1 for each of the 2 Traditions would have a higher percentage on the positive side; it's fairly even, with a higher percentage in the negative. Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,084 Likes: 12
Global Moderator Member
|
|
OP
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,084 Likes: 12 |
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
You spelled "Slovak" as "Slovack."
Gosh, but you Irish have such a way with words! hmm, I could claim that we Irish never were known for our skill at spelling ; the Jesuits made me do it (will that work  ?); nah, think I'll blame it on Mr. Evan Vrivaticky of the Ministry of Education of the Slovack Republic (he makes a good scapegoat, seeing as a webpage with his name and title was the most official-looking thing I could find in my defense :rolleyes: ). Actually, the National Slovack  Cemetary Society, notwithstanding, I know better  . Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa (that's a latinization ). Many years, Neil p.s. who knew that one can not exceed 8 emoticons per posting 
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
From dictionary.com ad homi�nem adv.
Usage Note:
As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable.
The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable.
The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel.
Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in �Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together� (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style.
A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in �Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination� (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in �Their recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus� (Donna M. Riley). I use ad hominem in the sense of the second paragraph. I think it is worth discouraging such arguments for reasons stated on the USCCB thread. The usage described in the third paragraph, while not nice, does not necessarily implicate a logical error. This recent change in meaning is unfortunate; the usages described in paragraphs two and three should not be confused.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear Neil, My friend Fr. Serge Keleher is very fluent in Gaelic and I hope to travel to Holy Ireland to attend a Gaelic Byzantine Liturgy in his parish of St Kenneth! I understand those trained in Gaelic habitually spell small "r's" like big "R's" (only smaller in size) . Among other achievements, Fr. Keleher was the one who helped me get over my squeamishness at having an icon of the "Pillars of Orthodoxy." Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear djs, Is THAT what "ad hominem" means then? I thought it meant . . . Just never mind . . . Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
Alex,
I would suspect that most of us would have to stop posting forever given these definitions.
djs,
If it helps I apologize. I don't think it is possible to have a discussion about religion without offending those definitions. I'm not able to separate the power of God and my passion for God from observations about faith. And I doubt that I'd be interested in even reading anything from anyone who could.
I'm occasionally negatively evaluated by students along these lines: "Professor Lauffer is too passionate about his subject. He must realize that not everyone cares about the subject as he does."
I've started opening the first day with a brief observation about this. "I confess and readily admit that I am passionate about everything I do. If I weren't I wouldn't do these things. I'd find something that I was passionate about. I suppose there are professors who don't care about their subject matter or about the students they teach. If you want one of those I suppose you could go find one, though I wouldn't know where to find them. But I am what you get if you stay in this class." This forum is not a classroom and I suppose we could stay on a level of abstraction that would offend no one, but I wouldn't stay with it and I suspect neither would anyone else.
I find Father Deacon John to be fairly even handed and non combative. If his approach frightens people off I think the person frightened off may have some serious problems. I should think that anyone frightened off by anything written here since I've been on this board for most of the last 4 years should seek out a spiritual advisor. I hope that is not also ad hominem, but if it is, I don't plan on changing.
Dan L
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Dan, I just posted the bit from dictionary.com because your post above made me realize that perhaps you and others are using the phrase in an entirely different sense (para 3) than I do (para 2). I doubt this will help my discussion with the Admin, but hope springs eternal. "Professor Lauffer is too passionate about his subject. He must realize that not everyone cares about the subject as he does." That is a badge of honor, you know. This forum is not a classroom and I suppose we could stay on a level of abstraction that would offend no one, but I wouldn't stay with it and I suspect neither would anyone else. Well, I think that, among other things, it is a classroom. I have leaned a great deal here on a variety of subjects from people with more knowledge and experience. I am especially grateful to those who have formally studied and teach religion and sxhared their knowledge here. I have also certainly been prodded by posters to do some investigating to learn more on my own. And there are also some things that are in my realm of experience and expertise that I like to write about. Too passionately or even combatively? Perhaps, but I think that trenchant discussion is good in peer-learning situations.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
Not having seen the questions, and being unable to vote for mechanical reasons, I may not be the best commentator, but here goes: if there are to be two patriarchs, one of the "Greek" tradition and one of the Slav tradition, I would assume that all the bishops of the "Greek" tradition would be members of that Patriarch's synod, and all of the bishops of "Slav" tradition would be members of the Slav Patriarch's synod. In those events, it will be incumbent on each synod to elect its patriarch, without reference to the candidate's ethnic origin (and, by the way, "Melkite" is not an ethnic designation anyway).
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
