The only bait and switch is by you, by inserting 'all' into the equation.
Where did I insert "all"? You said implied "some" and we challenged you by asking for "one", since "one" would establish "some".
What is funny about that is Catholics have no problem telling Protestants they are going to hell because they don't belong to 'The Church',
"Catholics have no problem...". What does that mean. It could mean NO Catholic has a problem. It could mean SOME Catholics have a problem, but others don't.
We went with "some" and asked if you could find ONE that did.
... Protestants they are going to hell because they don't belong to 'The Church'
By definition, I would think, NO Protestant is in full communion with the See of Rome, which is what I took you to mean by "belong to 'The Church'." (We have already discussed how we think that all who are baptized with water and the use of a Trinitarian formula DO in fact "belong to "the Church," but I don't think you meant that.
Presumably, the hypothetical (and so far not proven to exist) Catholic who would be "telling Protestants they are going to hell because they don't belong to 'The Church'," would mean ALL Protestants, because, as discussed, not "belonging" to 'The Church' seems to define the class.
So I think I have shown that your statement could be understood to be equivalent to:
There is at least one Catholic who tells Protestants that ALL of them are going to hell because they are Protestants."And I'd bet that maybe in Ireland or something there is one. But the context seemed to suggest that maybe there was a Catholic like that on FR who had actually said so in living memory.
Anyway, I see where in another post you are saying that
I just meant to make the point that both neither side is innocent, which I think the constant hounding on this thread proved.I guess I object to "constant hounding". You said,"Catholics have no problem... ." You did not say,"all have sinned," but you assigned a specific sign to a class or genus. You have been "hounded" only if defending oneself against an unjust charge is hounding. Do you really think that it's somehow persecution to object to an accusation one thinks undeserved?
To continue with the exercise in pedantry: You did NOT say "SOME catholics have no problem," or "I know of a Catholic who has no problem ..."
The statement seemed to be about "Catholics" as a genus, that is, generally - which usually admits of exceptions. But I think that qualifies as "blanket".
Anyway, if you had said, "None of us (or, more precisely, "neither side") is innocent," I suspect you would have found lots of agreement.
But you made a charge, and were "hounded" with defenses against what was, whatever you really meant to say, an attack.
The moral would appear to be that in a hot medium we should all try to cut each other breaks while we choose our own words carefully.