This editorial is filled with assumed motives. It assumes ewtn is motivated by division and narrative. It assumes the Holy Father is open to criticism from a traditional/conservative perspective despite evidence to the contrary. Etc.
I don't buy it. Assuming motives is a particularly weak form of debate. It's an easy way to build a straw …
This editorial is filled with assumed motives. It assumes ewtn is motivated by division and narrative. It assumes the Holy Father is open to criticism from a traditional/conservative perspective despite evidence to the contrary. Etc.
I don't buy it. Assuming motives is a particularly weak form of debate. It's an easy way to build a straw man that one goes on to compare against their own morally superior approach. I don't have any problem with criticisms against ewtn or anyone else, but keep it to what they do as opposed to their supposed motives for doing what they do. Otherwise be prepared to have your own motives questioned, which will lead to a contest of who has the most pure motives...despite the fact that motives are impossible to prove or even fully discern within one's self.
Personally I support JD and Ed because I appreciate their approach and think they bring a well informed perspective. I don't support them because I think they have superior motives or that they're always right.
This editorial is filled with assumed motives. It assumes ewtn is motivated by division and narrative. It assumes the Holy Father is open to criticism from a traditional/conservative perspective despite evidence to the contrary. Etc.
I don't buy it. Assuming motives is a particularly weak form of debate. It's an easy way to build a straw man that one goes on to compare against their own morally superior approach. I don't have any problem with criticisms against ewtn or anyone else, but keep it to what they do as opposed to their supposed motives for doing what they do. Otherwise be prepared to have your own motives questioned, which will lead to a contest of who has the most pure motives...despite the fact that motives are impossible to prove or even fully discern within one's self.
Personally I support JD and Ed because I appreciate their approach and think they bring a well informed perspective. I don't support them because I think they have superior motives or that they're always right.