Part 2 of "Apostate Logical Fallacies"

by logansrun 66 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  SixofNine

  the banality of evil

  Perfect descriptor.
• 

  Mary

  Some people called LBJ a murderer for keeping American troops in Vietnam so long? But, do you think that was his intention -- to just kill young men?

  It may not have been his intention, but I don't think LBJ gave a damn about the tens of thousands who died in Vietnam due to his policies; he was far more concerned with lining the pockets of all his oil buddies like L.B. Hunt and Brown & Root who stood to make millions from the war. It's interesting that Lydon Johnson changed the US's policy on their involvment in Vietnam less than 48 hours after JFK was assassinated. (JFK was, by the way, going to pull the troops out). So was LBJ a murderer? Not by our legal definition, but I would say he was, at the very least, guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

  there is a great deal of difference between being a willful murderer and in promoting a policy which you feel you is the right and noble thing to do which happens to lead to the death of some.

  Well, if you're talking about the GB's blood policy, you may be right. I'm sure they don't want to see anyone die from refusing a blood transfusion, but let's face it: if they have to choose between people's lives and preserving the image of the Organization, then the image is going to win every time. And if people die, so be it. They figure it's all for the greater glory of serving God the Organization. So like LBJ, I would say that they are at the very least, guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
• 

  Lady Lee

  I'm baaack

  Use of highly emotive language: Words like “evil, wicked, liars, etc.” are strong language. Hitler was an evil man. Stalin was a wicked man. Bill Clinton was a liar (sort of). But, when we start to apply words like this to the Society we may – note MAY – be making a mistake. I honestly cannot say that the GB are all liars or evil or whatever other terrible thing you can think of.

  Yes they are emotive words - accusatory in fact. I don't know that I would use those words to describe the GB although others might.

  Again, the human condition is very complex and these men have spent their whole lives living out a deeply ingrained fantasy. They really believe it! I think this must be taken into account before passing judgment on someone. (Some members here are extremely harsh on the GB to the point of being extremely distasteful.

  Yes they are human and they do believe it. In fact they have sacrified their entire lives for it. But does that make them any less accountable for the harm they have done in the name of God?

  Some examples:

  My father believed it was his "right" to do whatever he wanted in his own home with his wife and children. He believed that no one, not even the police had a right to interfere. Because of this believed "right" he thought he could beat my mother and his four children. Because of this belief he thought it was his right to have sex with his daughter. Because of this belief he thought he had a right to stalk my mother carrying a knife. He believed he had a right to strangle her and was irate when the police tried to interfere. Because of this belief he thought he had a right to lock his daughter in a closet for hours at a time. It was his right!

  Now because he believed this does that make it human? or OK? Or excusable? or forgiveable?

  At what point is his right to believe what he wants and act on those beliefs infringe on the rights of others? At what point is it not OK?

  Just because the GB believe something doesn't make it right. Just because they believe they have a right to impose their beliefs on others doesn't make them right. Nor does it make the damage they do less harmful or less excusable.

  I don't agree with the name calling and bashing. But holding someone accountable for the beliefs they impose on others is called justice. If they were just ordinary joe blow it might not be such an issue. But they have 6,000,000 JW believing they are God's instrument. They need to recognize the damage they have done, make amends and change their beliefs and policies. God says he will hold them doubly responsible. God will deal with judging them. I don't have to.

  But I can ask for basic human kindness and if they don't have it to give I will go elsewhere
• 

  minimus

  Hmm, It seems to me that Bradley, you're veering into JW apologist thinking lately. In your crusade to be so very careful about what we say or don't say about the Society, you seem to be forgetting or ignoring a very important matter and it is that the teachings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract society is based upon lies, untruth and misconceptions. Going back to the Hitler example, even if he spoke a truth about a matter, would that make us want to be careful that we don't generalize about him and the atrocities he commmitted? If he ever held a baby in his hands and kissed it, should we say that we should be careful to say that he wasn't ALWAYS a caring, kind man? I say BIG DEAL!!!! If we say the "Faithful Slave" is responsible for promoting unnecessary deaths that they are clearly bloodguilty over, that is ABSOLUTELY 100% correct. Whitewashing that statement is not good to do. In effect because of their unscriptural, flawed blood policy, they are killers. Don't suggest that they don't know or are misinformed. Also the same goes for 1914. They KNOW this date has no business being emphasized. They KNOW this date does not fulfill Bible prophecy. Yet, the hold on to their lie. Does that make them LIARS....YES, it does. So what is your point? That we should be careful that we don't give information that is actually incorrect? That's obvious. Your examples and your premise is all wrong.
• 

  Brummie

  Hope there isnt a part 3!

  Part 2 is as bad as part 1.

  Just because many Witness teachings are false or harmful does not mean that every Witness teaching is false and harmful. All too often I see statements like, “I won’t trust anything the Watchtower says” or other sweeping statements.

  Rat poison is 99% healthy food. Why is it an "apostate fallacy" to tell people not to eat any of it? You plead for common sense, use it.

  The Society teach that a cup of water containing 1% poison should be avoided at all costs. I guess you think we should put our "apostate fallacy" to one side and encourage people to go drink the 99% for a change? OoOk.

  Neomadman already told mentioned how not trusting something is not the same as saying everything else is wrong. Thats just a little more apostate common sense for ya.

  Just because many of the teachings of the JWs are wrong or, to be blunt, stupid, does not mean that there are no redeeming qualities about the Society

  Metaron:

  The Nazis believed in hard work, punctuality, and faith. The Soviets likewise.

  I don't recall anyone saying that everything about the Watchtower is evil, indeed,

  many folks here argue about reform - infering that something is worth saving

  There, a good "apostate" response, now who really is thinking like an apostate whose getting it all wrong ?

  Additionally, when someone stabs a person in the back, dont expect the person to turn around and say "I know you broke up my family, but I would rather look at your redeeming qualities" how unreal can we be? That kind of logic is not only existant in apostates, its a worldwide logic, how nieve.

  Often I read that the GB are murderers. This is because of the Society’s prohibition on blood transfusions. But, is it really correct to call them murderers? Some people called LBJ a murderer for keeping American troops in Vietnam so long? But, do you think that was his intention -- to just kill young men? I don't think so. Misguided and his policy may have been, there is a great deal of difference between being a willful murderer and in promoting a policy which you feel you is the right and noble thing to do which happens to lead to the death of some.

  You say it so casually, I guess you havent lost family to these doctrines. Blood transfusions? Go and study the organ transplant/vaccinations/serum bannings, and then get back to me about who really is thinking in fallicies.

  If LBJ stood there with the armageddon/eternal death gun held at the heads of his men, you would soon recognise how honorable and noble he was. Again, who is thinking in fallacies?

  Now I'll take the best quote of all out of this thread and put the appropriate parts here:

  ....Basically I see too many posts which use highly emotionalized language, generalizations, black and white thinking, hearsay, and the like. How can we correct this problem.... Just think before we post, that’s all. Ask yourself: Do I have my facts straight? Is there more than one way to look at this matter? How would a JW view this? If I were a JW apologist what defense would I make for them? Are my emotions getting in the way of my better thinking?

  I dont know what happened to you in these posts Bradly, but it appears to me that YOU are an "Apostate logical fallacy"

  Brummie
• 

  Francois

  Logans, it is abundantly clear that you do not know what you're talking about. In order for you to discuss "fallacies" you must first know what they are and what they are all about. I notice IW suffers the same ignorance as you.

  In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

  There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

  A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

  I wish I could remember where I got that so that I could credit it, but I don't.
• 

  Big Tex

  I thought long and had about replying in this thread. However I realize I could not say anything quite so eloquently and logically as Lady Lee, Brummie and Francois.

  Thumbs up you guys. You've earned your pay today.
• 

  logansrun

  It seems to me there are some threads that seperate the thinkers from the feelers. I guess this is one of those threads!

  Bradley
• 

  Lady Lee

  Bradley I really do try to be a bit of both.
• 

  minimus

  Bradley, I "feel" that you "think" that you are right, huh?