Why propagandize/appeal to emotion?

by cognisonance 21 Replies latest members private

*lost*

hi cog
I think you sound like an honest decent person, finding it hard to comprehend all this negativity against WTBTS. It's hard to believe it's all true ?
The facts are, these things have happened, are happening and people are suffering as a result.
There is always a PUBLIC profile - and a BEHIND THE SCENES true workings of an organisation.
The same thing happened with the RCChurch. Because they were priests and of the church, people were horrified such things were being said, and refused to believe. Now the truth is out, and the facts, it cannot be argued against. usually children are targeted by people they know, not by strangers on the street.
i too had no idea how bad it all is. I am horrified to find out the 'TTATT'.
But facts are facts and you can't argue against evidence.
Also - WTBTS looks to try to put themselves above the LAW and out of reach.
do they not practice what they teach, obey the superior authorities etc ...
They have brought shame and reproach on the name of Jehovah.
leaving_quietly

Cog, in most cases, I do not believe WTBS is intentionally lying. For instance, when dealing with doctrine unique to JWs, I believe they truly believe it.
I'd only be accurate with that statement if I could prove that they have purposely decieved or said things they knew weren't true their readers.
However, I have gotten into the habit of looking up sources and reading context when they quote from secular sources. Why? Because they have deceived with only partially quoting, or taking quotes out of context. I get really suspicious when any quote contains an elipsis ( . . . ) as that means something has been left out, perhaps something that would refute what they are saying. This has happened. Numerous times.
I also am now in the habit of looking up cited scriptures and asking myself these questions:
- What was the context of the scripture?
- Who was talking?
- Who was being talked to?
- Is the scripture, or just a phrase within the scripture, simply cherry-picked to support the viewpoint?
Case in point, the new Good News From God brochure in the very first lesson, in the very first paragraph, uses Jeremiah 29:11 to support the idea that God will soon "act to provide a better future for people in every land.". What does Jeremiah 29:11 say?
“‘For I myself well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward YOU,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give YOU a future and a hope.
Beautiful scripture, is it not? If one ONLY looked at that scripture, they would believe it supports the notion put forth in that first paragraph. However, what is the scripture really about? Looking back to Jeremian 29:1, we see it's words to those exiled in Babylon. Verse 4 supports that, too. Verse 10 is the promise that after the 70 years, Jehovah would turn his attention back to them. Thus, the next verse, verse 11, the verse used in the Good News brochure, specifically applies to those who were exiled in Babylon.
Does this mean that these words do not apply to us today? Well, yes, it does. These words were specifically meant for those exiled. While we like to think these words apply to us today, they do not. Therefore, using this cherry-picked verse, while seeming to support the view put forward in that first paragraph, actually has nothing at all to do with us. This, frankly, is deceptive. It would have been so much better to have found a more generic scripture to show how God feels towards humans, not one very obviously meant for a specific group at a specific time in history.
This is a minor example. There are more egregious examples out there of deception like this.
Another example of this (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/249211/1/Raphael-Aron-in-The-Age-newspaper-Jehovahs-Witnesses-a-cruel-cult) is where, in a recent newspaper article in Australia, a spokesman for JWs said shunning was a "myth", a total lie.
I would love to believe that WTBS does not lie, and I used to. However, I no longer believe that. I do not believe everything they say is a lie. And I do not believe everything they say is wrong. I am not looking for the wrong in them. However, in order to not be deceived myself, I feel I must double-check everything to prove it to myself.
cognisonance

Thanks for the responses. Now that I know more about the pedophilia issue, I concede these statements aren't problematic and the emotion appeal is warrented. Thanks.
Leaving_Quitely, you bring up some examples of when you feel they lied. The first one is quoting out of context (as they do all the time with evolution), and it's assumed that they must have known they were being deceptive. Still I argue that there could be other reasons (maybe they quoted from a second-hand source that quoted form the orignal source). This would be a case of "WTBTS spreads lies." That is a subtle difference. Additionally, this just defers the accusation of "lie" to secondary sources, and assumes they were lying. A better phrase would be something like, "WTBTS speaks untruth," since we only assume (even if it's reasonable) that they knowingly deceived. But we can't prove that 100%.
I bring this up because it is far less defensible for an active JW to discredit "WTBTS spakes untruth," than it is for them to discredit "WTBTS lies," when talking about quoting out of context. As regards "Shunning is a myth," well that indeed is a lie (but it also wasn't the WTBTS that said that, it was the spokesman. Do we know that he was told by the WTBTS to say that with 100% certainty? Or was he speaking on his own?).
My main reason though for starting this thread was my concern is in sistuations where JWs are told that former members spread lies, speak half-truths, and distort the truth, isn't it in their our best interests to avoid trading accuracy for a bit more sensationalism when making attention grabbing statements? "WTBTS speaks untruth" is still short, and still has some catchiness (especially since they claim to be the truth).
Phizzy, as regards what they said about 1914 vs. 1874, can that be proven that what is written nearly a century later about what the early bible students beliefs was a lie, or is it possible that the writters weren't aware of their own beliefs/history? The life stories where people talked about books that said 1914 was not the start of the last days, and recalled that it was the start of the last days indead, were they lying or was it faulty memory? I agree that these types of things are contridictions and help prove that the WTBTS doesn't have the truth, but I wouldn't go so far as saying these are lies.
cognisonance

Therefore, using this cherry-picked verse, while seeming to support the view put forward in that first paragraph, actually has nothing at all to do with us. This, frankly, is deceptive.
It is a misrepresentation of how those words are being used in the original source from a literal interpretation, but unless they are aware they are doing this (what if they aren't, what if they actually think it still applies since that religion likes to use a primary and secondary fulfillment interpretation all the time (or a physical vs. spiritual - there's all sorts of mental gymnastics a religous mind can employ)). If they don't think they are deceiving, then how can they be lying, since lying is all about the intent to deceive or knowing that what is said is untrue.
Going back to the evolution. They quote Carl Sagan saying that he believes God could have created life as shown in the fossil record. They leave out the context where Sagan, is actually making fun of a creationists view becuase he says this God must have been incompetent for all the trial and error and dead ends that resulted. He certainly didn't believe creationism and the fossil record are compatable, in fact he didn't even believe in God.
This is a prime example of quoting out of context. Did the WTBTS lie when they used this quote? Let's assume they didn't parrot this quote from some secondary creationist source. So who lied? The GB that apporved it? (did they read the context?) The reasearcher? (Likely the blame goes to him) The writer (who may have also not read the context)? Okay, so let's say the researcher lied, but the writer and the GB didn't know. So did the WTBTS lie? Or did they more accurately spread lies? Again this is why I think spread lies or speak untruth are better than jumping to conclusions that they lied.
After writing this I realize that even if someone in writing department lies, by fact he/she is part of the WTBTS, I concede the "WTBTS lies" accusation is valid in this case. But still, it's horibbly imprecise. Most of the time WTBTS = GB for the way we mean it. So does the "GB lie," or more accurately "spead lies / speak untruth?"
Oubliette

cognisonance, Great thread! Thanks for starting it.
I appreciate the point you make in your opening paragraphs, but personally I see nothing wrong with making a statement such as, " JW's protect and harbor pedophiles, " as long as it is supported with facts presented in a logical, reasonable manner.
The WT is guilty of making those types of assertions but then not providing factual evidence for such claims. For example, their recent, " apostates are 'mentally diseased'” comment in the Watchtower Study Edition of July 15th, 2011 (p. 16, para. 6 ).
Actually, a statement such as " JW's protect and harbor pedophiles, " is actually a really good thesis statement.
When writing or delivering an argumentative paper or speech, it is very effective to begin with a claim about a topic and then attempt prove that claim with specific evidence.
"The claim could be an opinion, a policy proposal, an evaluation, a cause-and-effect statement, or an interpretation. The goal of the argumentative paper is to convince the audience that the claim is true based on the evidence provided." - Purdue Online Writing Lab
A good thesis statement should be specific, it should be debatable and the balance of the argument should support the thesis with specific evidence and sound, logical reasoning.
Oubliette
BTW, thanks for contributing to my similar thread on Logical Fallacies in WT Publications
leaving_quietly

Still I argue that there could be other reasons (maybe they quoted from a second-hand source that quoted form the orignal source). This would be a case of "WTBTS spreads lies."
This is a prime example of quoting out of context. Did the WTBTS lie when they used this quote? Let's assume they didn't parrot this quote from some secondary creationist source. So who lied? The GB that apporved it? (did they read the context?) The reasearcher? (Likely the blame goes to him) The writer (who may have also not read the context)? Okay, so let's say the researcher lied, but the writer and the GB didn't know. So did the WTBTS lie? Or did they more accurately spread lies? Again this is why I think spread lies or speak untruth are better than jumping to conclusions that they lied.
Your points are well taken, and are the typical mindset of JWs (myself included until recent months). I recently heard a talk from a brother in the Writing Department who said they have to research all things accurately. He said if they write an article about some rare animal and print 40 million copies of it, someone who knows about these rare animals is bound to read it. If those facts are not accurate, he said, it would call into question the accuracy of other articles that dealt with Bible subjects.
That, to me, pinned it. Either they are really, really, really bad at researching, or, more likely, they are consciously deciding to use portions of quotations out of context. If we go with the former, then we could not trust anything they say. If we go with the latter, then . . . we cannot trust anything they say. The result is the same, either way.
It could very well be that a certain writer is really bad at researching. Who checks on their work? We don't know how far it goes. A case in point is with the article about the "given ones" back in 1992. Most of what they say is accurate. They even quote "The Dictionary of the Bible".
"When the group returned from Babylon, it contained few Levites, compared to the priests or Nethinim and “sons of the servants of Solomon.” (Ezra 8:15-20) The Dictionary of the Bible, by Dr. James Hastings, observes: “After a time we find [the Nethinim] so completely established as a sacred official class, that privileges are accorded to them.” The scholarly journal Vetus Testamentum notes: “A change occurred. After the Return from Exile, these [foreigners] were no longer regarded as slaves of the Temple, but as ministrants in it, enjoying a status similar to that of those other bodies, which officiated in the Temple.”—See the box “A Changed Status.”" - w92 4/15 p. 15 par. 16
Correct so far. But, the very next sentence, the first sentence of paragraph 17 says: "Of course, the Nethinim did not become the equals of the priests and the Levites."
That is not what The Dictionary of the Bible says. I have a copy of that. It says: "From this point the Nethinim gradually rose in official position, until they were indistinguishable from the Levites."
Whether this was very shoddy research, an oversight, or a complete lie I cannot say. However, if one is going to make a statement, one must be able to back it up, especially when quoting an external source.
This one incident, though very minor in the grand scheme of things, was what started me looking up everything. If they can be wrong about something so insignificant, what about things that really do matter?
Great thread, and love your username, BTW.
leaving_quietly

As regards "Shunning is a myth," well that indeed is a lie (but it also wasn't the WTBTS that said that, it was the spokesman.
I don't understand your reasoning. By definition, a spokesman is "A person, esp. a man, who speaks for another individual or a group". A spokesman says something in the capacity of representing someone else, in this case, WTBTS.
Secondly, this is exactly the same as saying the Society never claimed to be prophets (though that's not true, either), thus what they said can be erroneous forever. They have claimed, and continue to claim to be spokesmen for God, or "God's mouthpiece". The definition of spokesman speaks for itself.
My main reason though for starting this thread was my concern is in sistuations where JWs are told that former members spread lies, speak half-truths, and distort the truth, isn't it in their our best interests to avoid trading accuracy for a bit more sensationalism when making attention grabbing statements? "WTBTS speaks untruth" is still short, and still has some catchiness (especially since they claim to be the truth).
Point taken, and I agree to a point. Unfortunately, propaganda about former members is a very hard thing to tackle. Current JWs won't even look at websites such as this because of this fear.
cognisonance

This one incident, though very minor in the grand scheme of things, was what started me looking up everything. If they can be wrong about something so insignificant, what about things that really do matter?
Great thread, and love your username, BTW.
Thanks, I like it too, a combination as I’m sure you’ve caught onto, of cognitive + dissonance :)

You bring up a big point. The pride themselves on thorough research! I remember a yearbook a while back talking about how much work they put into verifying the accuracy of research (which has even more weight than a talk).

You are right that either they are lying or are incompetent. This hopefully isn’t a false dichotomy. If one were to argue that these are just isolated mistakes then maybe they aren’t lying or incompetent. However, we see these mistakes all over the place, which then infers incompetence at best.
The misuse of quotes that got me to start questioning what else was inaccurate was one about higher education. Here’s one:
Most people who enroll in a university look forward to earning a degree that will open doors for them to well-paying and secure jobs. Government reports show, however, that only about one quarter of those who go to college earn a degree within six years—a dismal success rate. Even so, does that degree translate into a good job? Note what current research and studies have to say.
“Going to Harvard or Duke [universities] won’t automatically produce a better job and higher pay. . . . Companies don’t know much about young employment candidates. A shiny credential (an Ivy League degree) may impress. But after that, what people can or can’t do counts for more.”—Newsweek, November 1, 1999. (w05 10/1 pp. 26-31)
The ellipse contains the rest of the paragraph and 4.5 more paragraphs after that and misses the point that Newsweek was comparing not those that go to college vs. those that don't, but those that go to Ivy league colleges vs those that go to less prestigous ones. The relavant parts (you can find the article online here):
Going to Harvard or Duke won't automatically produce a better job and higher pay. Graduates of these schools generally do well. But they do well because they're talented. Had they chosen colleges with lesser nameplates, they would (on average) have done just as well. The conclusion is that the Ivy League--a metaphor for all elite schools--has little comparative advantage...

...

At most colleges, students can get a good education if they try. "An able student who attends a lower tier school can find able students to study with," write Dale and Krueger. Similarly, even elite schools have dimwits and deadbeats. Once you're in the job market, where you went to college may matter for a few years, early in your career. Companies don't know much about young employment candidates. A shiny credential (an Ivy League degree) may impress. But after that, what people can or can't do counts for more. Skills grow. Reputations emerge. Companies prefer the competent from Podunk to the incompetent from Princeton.
cognisonance

I don't understand your reasoning. By definition, a spokesman is "A person, esp. a man, who speaks for another individual or a group". A spokesman says something in the capacity of representing someone else, in this case, WTBTS.
As my other example about the researcher points out, I conceded that this makes "WTBTS lies" valid, but not necessarily "GB lies." I guess in this example, I was using WTBTS to mean GB (see how imprecision sucks). That of course was my fault.
Point taken, and I agree to a point. Unfortunately, propaganda about former members is a very hard thing to tackle. Current JWs won't even look at websites such as this because of this fear.
I understand that a shocking headline sometimes is needed to get a people's attention since they won't actively be looking for the information in the first place. I guess I just don't like that it has to be that way. I wish logic would be all that is needed and appeals to emotion were not neccessary. I feel like I'm manipulating people if I appeal to emotion, but that is probably because a) I'm a very logical, analytical person, b) disliked how appeals to emotion were used on me to try and influence my thinking. I'm starting to come to terms with the fact that I need to embrace my emotional side more and realize that not everyone puts so much emphasis to cold logic.
Appeals to emotion can be fallacious, but I'm seeing that is only the case when there is no valid logic to back up the emotive conclusion.
Oubliette

cognisonance: I feel like I'm manipulating people if I appeal to emotion
Appealing to emotions and manipulating people are not necessarily the same thing. A lot depends on motive and intent.
When a man is trying to court a woman (or vice versa) you can bet they're trying to appeal to the other person's emotions, and maybe their hormones too!

Why propagandize/appeal to emotion?

Share this