Yes, I get that it’s not a big deal to you. However, you missed my point. My point was that Diogenes was attempting to make the argument that it’s not even a serious offense according to Catholic doctrine, and he was very wrong about that.
And, you know, addressing your point, which is that it’s not a big deal in a global sense, I have to disagree with that. I think it’s a hideously offensive thing to desecrate any culture’s sacred objects, and whether or not that object holds any meaning for me, personally, is completely irrelevant.
No, the reason I mentioned it was just as a semantic correction of Ibn who said the kid “ate a eucharist.” I was not trying to argue that it had not been consecrated. It was just a semantic nitpick.
Just to be clear, I did not try to argue this at all. I did not say and did not believe that the host in was question was not consecrated. I was purely nitpicking a word choice.
I know you weren’t arguing that the host wasn’t consecrated, you were arguing that you couldn’t desecrate “the eucharist” by taking one of the hosts and doing something to it, because it’s “just a fucking cracker” and didn’t equate to “the entire eucharist.” You were trying to downplay the seriousness (according to Catholic doctrine) of what happened.
On this thread you began by insisting that Serbs were Catholics and that they called themselves Catholics, claimed Catholics had only faced discrimination from other Christians and then made yourself look even more foolish by insisting that “eucharist” refers to “the ceremony not the fucking cracker.”
You have a tendency to deny ever making mistakes even when caught in one.
I remember you first attacked me for merely mentioning that Al Jazeera had a policy of never referring to Palestinian suicide bombers as “suicide bombers” but instead labeled them “martyrs”. You blustered that this was false. When I provided you with quotes from two Arab professors who were fans of Al Jazeera you then made yourself look not only stupid but bigoted by declaring the men to be “Islamophobic douchbags” and insisted they were wrong despite the fact that you can’t speak Arabic and never watched Al Jazeera during the Intifada.
In short, people won’t take you seriously if you never admit to making a mistake.
That said, people will still find you extremely amusing.
A few more back and forths went on, then you said:
Not only is every single quote here an incorrect statement, they clearly show that the entire point of your argument was that the host, although consecrated, isn’t of significance in and of itself (wrong, BTW), and that nothing is being desecrated by destroying one (also wrong).
No, he was fundamentally wrong about how the host is perceived. Even if it wasn’t true that the host is often referred to as “The Eucharist,” he was 100% incorrect to say that desecrating the host isn’t the same thing as desecrating “The Eucharist.” That is actually the definition of Eucharistic desecration, which is a mortal sin for a Catholic to commit.
Because you were wrong that Diogenes was correct. He said many things that were incorrect, focusing on his statement about the “primary” definition is a strawman.
Note the lack of the word “primary”. If you go to the actual post in question, Dio even highlighted the word “ceremony”. He was wrong, and you are as well.
Where was I wrong? Nothing I wrote was regarding Dio claiming that something “couldn’t” be called something (and I don’t even recall him saying that in this thread). If you’re going to say I was wrong about something, show me where.
It’s also a little ridiculous to pull “someone here knows someone who said…”
You haven’t demonstrated that I was wrong.
No, that’s not a straw man. You don’t know what straw man means, do you?
I was referring to what Ibn Warraq wrote in post #175. He quoted Dio saying:
and then Ibn said:
According to what I’m finding online including the two links I posted, he wasn’t wrong.
Dio has gone on to say that it’s not the cracker alone, and that’s also correct according to what I’ve found.
Yes, I do. A strawman is when you misrepresent someone else’s argument in order to rebut it. In this case, you misrepresenting Diogenes’ argument in order to defend it. So…perhaps it’s not the appropriate term in this case, but whatever. You’re still misrepresenting his argument.