Hi Proplog2: Didn't mean to upset you by posting a new thread. This got me into trouble a couple of months ago ... but the reason I did is that I did a considerable amount of checking and work on this, and wanted highlight a rubuttal to invite comments on both threads.
So, I will rebut your above rebuttal on my thread ... and likewise, I respect the fact that you will offer rebuttals here. Hope that works for you.
Well, what the hell ... I will just post mine in both places. here it is:
I opened this thread for contrast ... and I will post my rebuttals here to Proplog2, and he evidently will post his rebuttals on his thread ... this way, we can see the contrast.
Proplog2 said,
"First Amazing throws a couple of straw-man fallacies into the mix. If my use of APA was confusing he should have made a good faith effort to ask me to clarify the confusion. Of course I did not mean American Psychiatric Association - I don't believe Singer is a psychiatrist. (correct me if I'm wrong) And I didn't mean the American Philosophical Association. I don't believe Singer is a working philosopher. (Againg correct me if I'm wrong) And I didn't mean the American Poodle Association, American Pun Association, or any other APA."
First, this is not a strawman issue. It was proplog2's use of Scientology material that prompted the discovery that they quote somehting titled APA when it turned out to be the American Philospohical Association ... and anyone not watching carefully, would draw the conclusion that it was not the American Psychological Association ... it was Scientologists who did this switch out.
Secondly, the field of expertise is the American Psychiatric Association as to cult mentality, and it is that Association which speaks about it ... and not the other two APA organizations. I check all three to see if Singer is mentioned, and she is not ... so for Proplog2 to go and mention American Poodle Associaiton is to detract from a narrow scope effort, and make this a circus.
"I was referring to the APA of which she was a member.
So much for the Straw-men. The torch of logic shows Amazings intentions here."
I undersdtand that Singer was a member. There is no straw man as I noted above ... except your reference to the American Poodle Association.
"Let's get on with his next rebuttal. He uses the guilt by association fallacy. This fallacy consists in attempting to "mind-control" others into accepting his view by pointing out that the opposing view is held by those with negative esteem, instead of presenting evidence for his position."
Okay, then why not ask the Watchtower Society or the Mormons to expound on cults in their legitimate expert opinions. I did not use guilt by association. The fact that Scientologists have purchased C.A.N. and fought them in the courts ... and the fact that the American Psychiatric Association recognizes that the Scientoilogists have been in a war on this issue ... then, it stands to reason that the Church of Scientology is BIASED ... and this make quoting them as practically a sole source questionable.
"In fact I warned that a lot of the information against Singer is on Scientologist web-sites. But does the fact that the Scientologist point out that the APA (I'm NOT going to explain APA everytime I use it.) severely criticized Singer's research as being lousy science mean that this didn't happen? Is the fact that Scientologist (or whatever Devil you choose) claimed Singer took the APA to court and the judge ruled against her mean that this didn't happen?"
The judge ruled on a legal issue, not a medical or mental health issue. Also, the fact, as I noted above, that Scientologists are pushing to discredit Singer means that there is something wrong. The fact that the American Psychiatirc Association supports what used to be C.A.N. and other works on "Cults" means that we must look at more than one side of this claim that Scientologists make.
L. Ron Hubbard was an engineer who got into mental health issues ... he was never a competant qualified trained mental health expert. The fact that he would call his organization, which promotes his book on Dyenetics ... a CHURCH ... should tell you something right there ... like vitamen salesmen who call their products nutritional supplements ... because they cannot by law call them medicine ... same type of thing.
"I am not likely to be a victim of any organization because I work hard to look for the fallacies in peoples (including my own) reasoning."
Okay. But you did not address the substance of my material ... but instead looked for falacies, for which your rebuttal is found wanting ...
