by logansrun 245 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Sunny I didn't take it that way. But I've found most of Bradleys comments condescending in this thread, or in most threads. Especially when he asked me if I've ever made a single substantive contribution to this site, as though whining about this and that is substantive.
Some boys have huge egos, it's ok, easier to rattle their cage.
Logan:
Britain (and the allies) were not aggressors in WW II, they were on the defensive.
To begin with, yes. Yet even then they were still combatative, still agressively active, and a good job too. They were most certainly militant.
The Nazis were fascist hyper-nationalists whose goal was Arayan supremecy and genocide of "inferior races."
Ah, well now we're getting to the point. Their goal was Aryan supremacy and genocide of "inferior races". This is racism, not nationalism. I would say that they fall more readily under the category of "militant racism". After all, if it was militant nationalism, what nation were they militating (is that a word?) Germany? Maybe, but Hitler was Austrian. Nor did the Nazis really wish to fight Britain, they would have much rather Britain was won over to their side by the British Nazis active at the time. Nope, it was race that was the crux, not nationality.
any attempts to obfuscate that point could be equated simply as a defense of the hypernationalist militancy we personally advocate.
It could be equated that way, if we were to engage in a logical fallacy i.e.
1) Militant Nationalism = X definition
2) Expatbrit doesn't agree with definition X.
3) Therefore Expatbrit must be a militant nationalist trying to obfuscate, because Militant Nationalism = X definition (return to step 1)
I'm sure there's a name for that one. Circumstantial Ad Hominem, I think?
Expatbrit
Expat:
Britain (and the allies) were not aggressors in WW II, they were on the defensive.To begin with, yes. Yet even then they were still combatative, still agressively active, and a good job too. They were most certainly militant.
I think most people would readily agree that there is a substantial moral difference between using force to defend oneself and using force to assault another. The same is true with nations.
The Nazis were fascist hyper-nationalists whose goal was Arayan supremecy and genocide of "inferior races."Ah, well now we're getting to the point. Their goal was Aryan supremacy and genocide of "inferior races". This is racism, not nationalism. I would say that they fall more readily under the category of "militant racism". After all, if it was militant nationalism, what nation were they militating (is that a word?) Germany? Maybe, but Hitler was Austrian. Nor did the Nazis really wish to fight Britain, they would have much rather Britain was won over to their side by the British Nazis active at the time. Nope, it was race that was the crux, not nationality.
Well, if we are going to go by very strict definitions we couldn't even call what the Nazis did as "racism" since most anthropologists, genetecists and social scientists believe there really is no such thing as "race." But, that would be pedantic and I realise you are using the word "race" in the vernacular usage, much the same way I use the word "nationalism." All the same, was it militant racism or militant nationalism that was the problem with the Third Reich? Since their "race" was primarily clustered in one "nation" I think it is safe to say that it was both racism and nationalism.
any attempts to obfuscate that point could be equated simply as a defense of the hypernationalist militancy we personally advocate.It could be equated that way, if we were to engage in a logical fallacy i.e. 1) Militant Nationalism = X definition 2) Expatbrit doesn't agree with definition X. 3) Therefore Expatbrit must be a militant nationalist trying to obfuscate, because Militant Nationalism = X definition (return to step 1) I'm sure there's a name for that one. Circumstantial Ad Hominem, I think?
LOL!
Remember, I said it could be interpreted that way, not must. Just because a judgment cannot be made simply by following formal logic does not necessarily mean the judgement is in error. For example, lets take our favorite little "cult":
1) Cult = X definition
2) The Watchtower does not agree with X definition
3) Therfore the Watchtower is really a cult that simply wants to obfuscate X definition because X = definition.
Remember, you were the one that brought in syllogisms, not I!
I like you expat....and I doubt you're a militant nationalist, btw.
Bradley
Abaddon:
Depends what you mean by 'belief'. Little Toe feels that someone having a strong opinion that is not 100% verifiable has a belief (correct me if I'm wrong LT); thus atheism is a belief to him. Other people might choose different spins on the word 'belief'.
So much is in the definition of words, as further posts to this thread have brought up
(I'm not even going to enter into the Militant Nationalist debate ).
I believe a lot of things, but I may subsequently be proven wrong (else evidence may temporarily sway me).
I believe I have the strength of character to be true to myself, in the face of such change (time will tell ).
Once the very basis of one's faith is eroded (and I would include Atheism in the list of philosophies covered by my use of that word), one is faced with a choice about blindly believing or freeing oneself from such ignorance. It isn't always an easy choice to make, though, and I would further postulate that some are maybe unable to make a transition.
Bradley:
Perhaps an effective compromise is to agree that the Nazi's were very very naughty boys...lol
Expatbrit
Sunnygirl:
Nice to see you actually address the topic of how PATHETIC it is the community who support the benefits of alternative therapies have not supported proper research into them, with which they could show the scientific world how closed minded they are.
Oh, hang on ...
... you didn't address that topic at all ...
... you commented on me making a comment to another poster. Quite how anyone could take a comment (directed at someone else) that I used to go out with someone who looked related to them, but was plainer, in any way other than 'I used to go out with someone who looked related, but was plainer', I don't know.
That wasn't condecending, by the way. That was sarcasm with a seasoning of irony.
So, why do you think the alternative community has, in many instances, failed resoundingly to show any benefits of their therapies et.al.? Surely this exposes them to accusations of being either gullable, or using other peoples gullability against them for financial gain? If these things work then what's the problem with proving they work?
Stacey:
I'm glad you didn't take it the wrong way. You do however seem to have difficulty telling posters apart, as I said what Sunny quoted, not the Bradster.
As for some guys having huge egos... I think you're risking entering a inter-kitchen utensil discussion on carbonisation.
Not that I think someone having an ego is a bad thing... just someone with a big ego is normally better off not using that as an attack on someone else.
I know I'VE never used it...
Well Bradley,
You obviously aren't out to win friends here yet I like part of the point that I think you are trying to make. Are most people just plain stupid? is your question. LOL.....next talking point for you is use of tact. I forgot what point number that is in the Ministry School.
Anyway, I do know that a lot of people including myself may slack off in our critical thinking. For example, it may be easier to be a couch potato than to do some serious research on whatever. I am trying to do just that as I think that developing my critical thinking and just my knowledge on certain subjects would be a good thing. That said, I am not a stupid person.
Ron
Abaddon:Just a quick comment on alternative therapies...
If they are merely placebos, enabling an individual to access the power of the mind to effect pain relief and cure, what's the problem?
For that kind of "mind-fooling" to work, there is often required some level of mystique.
The fact that it does genuinely help, in some cases, surely is worthy of note - even if the only effective component of the external stimuli is "suggestion"?
Bradley:I'm with ExpatBrit on the subject of Hitler being a very naughty boy!!!
Let's not see any red-herrings or strawmen in your rebuttal, please
Little Toe:
Heya!!
If they are merely placebos, enabling an individual to access the power of the mind to effect pain relief and cure, what's the problem?
If you think about the simple set-up of a 'test' for faith healing, you will understand (if you know a little about testing) it is designed to show a/ if the person giving the treatment is the 'active ingredient', or b/ if the person receieving the treatment is the 'active ingredient', c/ whether the emotional state of the giver/receiver has an effect (belief vs. non-belief) or d/ some synergetic combination.
Once we understand WHY there is such strong anecdotal evidence for certain treatments/beliefs, we can perhaps harnness the knowledge to produce more effective treatment reigemes.
Example;
http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-03/acupuncture.html
Accupunture is now scientific fact. Understanding the mechanism of how it works in practise (rather than having a semi-mythical model of how it works) will mean that the therapy can give GREATER benefits.
This is why I get antsy; I don't care if it's a placebo; understanding why somethings have a greater placebo value than others is a gateway to greater health benefits. I don't care if it's some innate ability that everyone has, to heal oneself, that is activated by interaction with another; understanding will give benefits. I don't care if some people do have paranormal powers to heal other people. Understanding will give benefits.
Understanding may also disappoint a great number of people and ruin the livilihoods of others, but as this will be due to having misconceptions or conceits convincingly falsified... tough luck. It may also highlight ways to help people that will yield real long-term benefits, as my example of accupunture illustrates.
Consider homeopathy; currently we don't know how it works. The distillations used are so dilluted there are NO ATOMS of the original substance in them. There's strong anecdotal evidence it DOES work. Understanding for sure the ifs and whys will save lives.
I find the complacent attitude regarding alternative therapies shown by some sickening (not you). If these can help people then let us figure out HOW, rather than wallowing in ignorance of the how and why and questioning people who want to winnow the 'chaff of ignorance from the wheat of knowledge'.
Abaddon:
Agreed (though you are correct in your assumption that I know little about the full methodology behind testing).
What I do find disturbing is the attitude of trying to debunk, rather than understand, with an absence of evidence either way. In such an environment it's no wonder that people can get defensive of their chosen discipline.
