Monday, November 22, 2010

"Emperor Pope Dave": Anti-Catholic Mocking Reaches New Sublime Heights of Stupefied, Fathomless Imbecility
"My first act as Pope Buford II is to infallibly declare that anti-Catholic Protestant polemicists are logically challenged, mediocre satirists!"

Things were starting to get boring. I thought these guys were a bit off their game. After all, I have been the subject of two caricatures from Bishop James White's rather talented caricaturist (on 4-22-04 and 1-13-05). And I was immortalized in an Eric "the Yellow" Svendsen work of art that satirized the National Inquirer and had "me" on the cover as an associate of Holocaust deniers. At least he had the sense to remove his -- without renouncing it, of course (ah, but I have preserved it in the archives for posterity).

Some nut a few years back created an entire blog that pretended to be from me, complete with mocking pictures of me riding a scooter and so forth. Frank "centuri0n" Turk put out his "Free Dave Armstrong" paraphernalia. I still want one for my birthday or for Christmas! Any takers? Gene M. "Troll" Bridges compared me directly to Fidel Castro, Iranian despot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and North Korean tyrant Kim Jong-il, complete with pictures.

Not to be topped, Steve "Whopper" Hays comrade Patrick Chan now has me put in my place (for my outrageous hubris in noting that Doctors of the Church can sometimes err!: something any properly catechized 12-year-old Catholic would know) as emperor, king, and pope, by clever photo-shopping. You can see one above, and the other two are just as ridiculous (one / two). See the entire post, Emperor Pope Dave (12-11-10). In case anyone is interested in the actual point of contention that was the cause of this latest outbreak of idiotic mockery, and how these nitwits again completely miss the rather simple logical observation that I made, see my initial combox remarks (one / two).

As icing on the cake of an already classic display of anti-Catholic ingenuity, we have "Turretinfan" (The Anonymous One) distorting one of my statements (as he almost always does; he has become a caricature of a caricature of a know-nothing anti-Catholic zealot). He wrote:

Bellarmine's words are, according to this blogger, "a perfect non sequitur."

What I actually wrote, was:

And we don't claim infallibility for Doctors of the Church, which is why this post is a perfect non sequitur.

Can you see the difference ("this post" and "Bellarmine's words" being two completely different things)? If you can, then marvel with me how this supposedly sophisticated, intelligent fellow cannot. I've long since ceased attempted substantive debate with these guys. One can readily see why! They offer little of substance in the first place, and even when they do do that on rare occasions, it is so shot-through with vicious self-contradiction that it is like trying to reinvent the wheel getting them up to speed and introduced to elementary logic and those stubborn things, "facts." Who has the patience? Alas, not I.

For related reading, see my collection of documentary papers and some counter-satires of my own on my "infamous" Anti-Catholicism Page:

How Anti-Catholics Often Argue (Massive Use of Ad Hominem, Personal Insult, Smear Tactics) / My Humorous, Satirical Retorts


John Salmon said...

You know, Pope Jethro remains unused.

Dave Armstrong said...

That's fun, too, but I like Buford better.

Turretinfan said...

"Can you see the difference ("this post" and "Bellarmine's words" being two completely different things)?"

Why don't you reproduce the post itself, so we can see the difference between "this post" and "Bellarmine's words."