Part 2 of "Apostate Logical Fallacies" (page 6)

logansrun

Dearest Brother Farkel,

Ah, well it didn't take much to finally get on your curmudgeony side did it? Actually, I feel "priveledged" to finally rouse the ire of the Mighty Farkel. Now, let me show you why you are wrong (for the most part).

Technically, of course, you are correct that my use of the term "logical fallacies" is not accurate. I am well aware of this. But, certainly you are aware that terms have more than just their formal meaning, especially in the eyes of the public. Since there are numerous assertions about Jehovah's Witnesses on this forum that I feel (you do not?) are incorrect or overblown, I have called this fallacious. In hindsight I could have chosen better words. Big deal.

Actually a careful reading of Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary will show the following:

Argument: 1 an outward sign: INDICATION 2 a: a reason given in proof or rebuttel b: discourse intended to persuade....4: an abstract or summary esp. of a literary work

Argumentation 1: the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion 2: DEBATE, DISCUSSION

Fallacy 1 GUILE, TRICKERY b : deceptive appearance 2 a a false or mistaken idea b: erroneous or fallacious character

So, in reality I did not use any of te above terms incorrectly. There is formal and informal logic. I believe (although I am not certain) that I was using the latter. Oh, you also asked (told?) me to look up the word "essay." I did.

Essay: ...3 a: an analytic or interpretative literary composition usu. dealing with its subject from a limited or personal point of view b: something resembling such a composition

So, I feel I was also correct in calling my post an "essay." In the past I've had other posts in this format and a very respected member here refferred to it as an "essay." What was your point again?

Farkel, I like you. I think your posts can be very funny at times and you obviously are an intelligent fellow. But, in your efforts to to battle illogic you yourself become illogical. May I suggest you look up the term ad hominem?

Anyway, just like Francois you have done nothing to actually discuss the content of my post. You have simply nit-picked at terms and found fault with my informal usage of words. I find it rather curious that this appears to be the totality of your thoughts on the matter.

Farkel I think you're probably an over-all good guy. Like I said your posts on the JWs are some of the most hilarious I've seen, although I certainly wouldn't use them in a formal debate with a JW. I do feel you should tone down your "first strike" attacks on posters who did nothing to offend you whatsoever. Really, don't be like the asshole elders some of us dealt with. Rise above.

Bradley

expatbrit

Rem:

LOL! Pretty good example of why you can never trust anything the Watchtower says. They even fake it when talking about kids dying for their blood policy.

Here's that cover:

Page 2 says:

"In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue."

And yet some of the pictures on the cover are of kids who had no medical issue with blood? Well, it's good that at least one of these kids wasn't sacrificed to the Governing Body's ego. On the other hand, it's another blatant example of dishonesty by the Watchtower.

Anyway, thanks for the info!

Expatbrit

Farkel

Bradley,

I appreciate your kind response.

You said:

: But, certainly you are aware that terms have more than just their formal meaning, especially in the eyes of the public. Since there are numerous assertions about Jehovah's Witnesses on this forum that I feel (you do not?) are incorrect or overblown, I have called this fallacious. In hindsight I could have chosen better words. Big deal.

Unfortunately, you are trying to use dictionary definitions to make your point, when the plain truth is you used the term "logical fallacy" in the first place. That term, unlike your un-connected dictionary defintitions of logic and fallacy is a precise term used in formal debate and it means exactly what I said it means.

Look up the word "formal" in the dictionary. Then look up the word "debate" in the dictionary. Then explain how those two (with many different nuances each), unconnected dictionary terms can properly define a term called "formal debate."

After that, pick your favorite search engine and find pages with the term "formal debate." You will find what I said.

Nice try, but no cigar. I stand by what I said.

Farkel

Stephanus

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

Hitler restored full employmeny to Germany, was fond of children and animals, hated dirty jokes and was a non-smoker. But how much of his LASTING legacy relates to those snippets of info?

drwtsn32

Bradley: I have enjoyed both of your "Logical Fallacies" posts.

I agree that people sometimes go a bit overboard with their attacks on the WTS. It is understandable why this happens, but unfortunately it makes the argument a little less believable... especially since the opposing side will more easily find fault with the argument and then dismiss the entire thing, even the accurate points.

Thanks for posting!

logansrun

Just when you thought your thread has died....................

Gozz

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. 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.

Really? The men on the GB have proved themselves to be wicked men.They have taken collective decisions that have harmed people, decisions that were glaringly inconsistent with their own declared sense of right and wrong. I refer specifically to the treatment of the Malami brothers, and connect that to the similar matter of Mexico. Just how many policies, how many deaths make a bunch or men wicked? Do they have to expressly shoot people before you see the point? I hope you'll be able to say a word or two about Malawi/Mexico, and explain how the decisions of the men involved in that betrayal was not evil. I'll be glad to see how you wrap their human condition around it, and unwrap the human condition of the men and women who lost their lives because of that wacked policy. It would be good, to boot, to see the justification that because a man actually believes in something, and knows it's the best for another, he is absolved of wrongdoing irrespective of the effects of definite actions he took in furtherance of his belief.

rem

Actually, it doesn't just happen on this board. I usually find myself defending the WT Society (gasp!) when discussing it with my mom. Sometimes she just goes really overboard. It's not so bad now as it was when she first left, but she still believes in some irrational stuff, like the Illuminati are controling the Society.

rem

Francois

" Just because many Witness teachings are false or harmful does not mean that every Witness teaching is false and harmful."

Au Contraire. Each and every Witness teaching IS harmful, whether false or not, because YOU and I and EVERY OTHER WITNESS must accept it, believe it and preach it as the truth from God's only channel of communication - or suffer the sure and certain consequences. The teaching must not even be questioned.

It's good that you think as you do. However you do not think nearly deeply nor thoroughly enough.

francois

logansrun

Francois,

However you do not think nearly deeply nor thoroughly enough.

Nor do you buddy. One only has to look at your metaphysical beliefs or the vitriolic way you have treated JWs in the past to find that out. (I'm refferring to your dismissal of them from your door a number of months ago) I stand by my original post in almost every way (save the title). To suggest that every JW teaching is wrong because it must not be questioned seems to be stretching the argument. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Bradley

Part 2 of "Apostate Logical Fallacies"

Share this