I talked with somebody recently who said it is the same for a person to speak against something and another person to yell in the attempt to shut them up. This is a type of moral equivalency which is a line of argumentation that A is morally equal to B. Generally this kind of logic is flawed as it tends to be used by people who heavily disagree with others and use it against them. So, for example: some people equivocate anti-Islamic and anti-homosexuality persons to Nazis because they personally support Islam and homosexuality for example while ignoring the fact the anti-Islamic and anti-homosexuality person may be morally opposed to violence against Muslims and gays while the Nazis called for violence against all they deemed “undesirable”.
Other moral equivalency arguments people use is that the CIA interrogation tactics (i.e. waterboarding) is morally equivalent to the terrorist acts committed by those the CIA interrogates, that the Bible is equivalent to the Quran, that Christianity is no more true or better than any other religion, that emotionally based arguments are equal to intellectually based arguments, and so on. Ultimately these examples are based on emotionally based arguments and perhaps some misperceptions learned from others.
What’s worse is this individual was Catholic. They want to call themselves Catholic but apparently they don’t believe in objective truth. No wonder there are so many problems, because so many Catholics give license to others to continue their way. When I defended Catholic doctrine, I was yelled at and falsely accused of saying people are not equal, when I was saying not all person’s argumentation is equal and that is where is whole moral equivalency comes in place. It’s very disappointing when Catholics throw under Catholics under the bus for defending Catholic orthodoxy and when you express you’re just concerned for their well-being the insults and raised voice continue.