I can always excuse a headline. They are largely meaningless and intended to draw the eye. That's not the problem. It's the argumentation that follows such a headline that's the problem. In virtually ALL such debates, there is no nuance or care taken to identify precisely who is being attacked, and as we have seen here, even the attempt to defend those who are innocent of the crimes results in insults and opprobrium being heaped upon the writer who is just attempting to bring some reason, nuance and balance to the discussion.Thinking Aloud wrote:I agree that if one is writing a treatise or engaging in a formal debate or discussion, these are very important distinctions to make - when the subject comes up in a conversational style (as is often the case here) I tend to pick out the context from the particular item, even if (in strict terms) it may at first appear misleading. So, for instance, the thread title "Catholic church at it again. This time Holland." could be misleading as it might imply "now" for the abuse; on investigation, it's clear that the "now" of it is the discovery of historic abuse, and that the thread title is just a hurried, conversational, even deliberately scandalous introduction. Yes, it can be called "sloppy", but such conversational discourse on any topic is replete with sloppiness: "football fans are a disgrace"; "bankers get huge bonuses again"; "politicians in corruption probe". I don't expect conversations in real life or here to be stilted by perfect grammar or even accurate phrasing such that every statement holds true on its own - I can take the context and apply it even if the precise wording is off.Seth wrote:Well, the simple thing to do might be to be discriminating and precise in how one uses language when posting, so that if one is referring to some sub-set of all Catholics, such as "pedophile Catholic priests," or "Catholic Bishops who conspire to cover up sexual abuse," or "the Pope," or some other identifiable sub-group of individual human beings who comprise the Catholic church, one actually takes the time to specify exactly which sub-group one is referring to, so as not to sloppily imply that the claim one makes is not made against or in derogation of persons not part of that intended sub-group.
I believe that's how a careful, rational thinker using reason, logic and rhetorical skill would go about it.
This happens literally EVERY time I speak up regarding broad-brush generalizations and accusations involving Catholics. It's a meme with Atheists that they cannot break free from. Any support for the church or its members is automatically seen as support for child molesters and the outrage begins.
But it's an idiotic meme and not representative of the least bit of reason, logic or rational thought, and I like to point that out.