Real Meaning fo Moscow Ban on JW's

by proplog2 30 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  BONEZZ

  As for the Watchtower Organization...SCREW THEM AND THE HORSE THEY ROAD IN ON! They are some of the biggest hypocrites in this world. They send their reps to the United Nations meetings to plead for human rights and then DO NOT EXTEND THE VERY SAME RIGHTS TO THEIR PEOPLE. Yes, they want their rights so they can peddle their hate messages (as Farkle noted) and their message of destruction for all those who don't buy into their garbage. As for me, and many on this board, if it were not for the "worldly" folks I wouldn't be here today...yes the same folks they pray everyday to be destroyed by Jehovah. They plead to the governments so they can sell their shit and then pray to Jehovah to destroy the same governments who grant their wishes. They are gutless maggots who suck everything they can out of this system, as flawed as it is, give nothing in return, and then condemn it to destruction. These are the same people who brought you such concepts as "Theocratic Warfare". When they start treating people better I will reevaluate my opinion of them.

  -BONEZZ
• 

  proplog2

  Farkel:

  As long as you are naming "fallacies" I hope you aren't using the "slipery slope" accusation as a "straw-man" to distract people from your support of undemocratic practices. I would think that having been freed from the influence of people who try to protect you from things like the "internet" and "apostate reasoning" and "disgraceful (though enjoyable) sexual practices" that you would promote a more libertarian behavior on the part of goverment. Whatever happened to "buyer beware"? But, excuse me for questioning your judgement -because yours is the "correct" only "righteous" "ethical" and "just" perspective.

  If you will allow me to put my statement back in its context I would like to show that it is NOT a slippery slope but a logical conclusion.

  Here are my words in their original context. I will put it into the standard argument form of SINCE (Premise) THEREFORE (Conclusion). Even though the words SINCE and THEREFORE are not in my original statement they are nevertheless implied as I put this forth as an argument.

  SINCE: "...it is also the responsibility for a government to apply the law equally to ALL citizens.

  THEREFORE: "If you ban Jehovah's Witnesses you would have to ban ALL religion."

  I specifically mentioned the Russian Orthodox because they regularly preach hateful sermons against Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, & other religions.

  So I was not saying that the banning of Jehovah's Witnesses would lead eventually to the banning of Russian Orthodox and other religions. I merely suggested that if the court had justice and consistency as its aim it would be appropriate to apply those same standards to all religions. Of course they won't do this. The aim of the court was not to rectify some injustice but to eliminate competition with the Russian Orthodox Church.

  So you see Farkel. The accusation you are making is either an intentional "straw man" or you misunderstood what I wrote. Which was it?
• 

  Farkel

  proplog2,

  You said:

  : SINCE: "...it is also the responsibility for a government to apply the law equally to ALL citizens.

  : THEREFORE: "If you ban Jehovah's Witnesses you would have to ban ALL religion."

  : I specifically mentioned the Russian Orthodox because they regularly preach hateful sermons against Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, & other religions.

  But that doesn't matter, does it? The Russian Orthodox Church is a part of ALL religions in Russia, good, bad or indifferent. In your slippery slope not only the Russian Orthodox Church would be banned but ALL Churches.

  : So I was not saying that the banning of Jehovah's Witnesses would lead eventually to the banning of Russian Orthodox and other religions.

  You said exactly the opposite. You said ALL religions. What part of ALL religions can you not understand?

  Note again what you said: "If you ban Jehovah's Witnesses you would have to ban ALL religion."

  Seems pretty clear to me.

  : I merely suggested that if the court had justice and consistency as its aim it would be appropriate to apply those same standards to all religions.

  Ok.

  : Of course they won't do this. The aim of the court was not to rectify some injustice but to eliminate competition with the Russian Orthodox Church.

  But that is not what you said. YOU are the one making the strawman. My attack was based upon this slippery slope fallacy in YOUR OWN WORDS:

  Note again what you said: "If you ban Jehovah's Witnesses you would have to ban ALL religion."

  : So you see Farkel. The accusation you are making is either an intentional "straw man" or you misunderstood what I wrote. Which was it?

  This is a "false dilemma" fallacy proplog2. I've bantered with you for many years, and you still haven't learned basic logic. You've stated that there are only two possibilities as the outcome from what I said, when indeed there may be more. At least one other possibility is true, thus defeating your false dilemma: I'm right and your sweeping generalization and slippery slope argument is just plain wrong. That possibility wasn't on your list. This makes it a classic false dilemma.\

  When you are in a hole, it is best to throw away your shovel.

  Farkel
• 

  proplog2

  Farkel:

  You still don't understand what I said. AND OR you don't understand the slippery slope fallacy.

  The slippery slope fallacy consists in assuming, without appropriate evidence, that a particular action or event is just one, usually the first, in a series of steps that will lead inevitably to some specific consequence. This is also known as the camel's nose fallacy. You let the camel poke his nose in the tent and pretty soon you will have the whole camel.

  I am not proposing a series of events. I am not even predicting a future outcome of banning JW's. I said that if you are going to follow the principle of applying the law equally to all cases then you would have to ban all religions. Well I would concede perhaps not ALL religions. There are probably some religions that are so weak in their influence that they are a threat to no-one. But certainly the behavior of the Russian Orthodox church which is behind this mischief would make it an equal candidate for banning. I am not predicting that banning ALL religion will be the outcome of this laughable court ruling. In fact I would predict that this decision will be reversed when it is scrutinized by world opinion.

  Now then do you see where the scheme for "slippery slope", "domino", "camel's nose" or whatever you want to call it doesn't fit in any way what I was saying. What I said would never even be selected as an example of this particular fallacy. The key is a SERIES of events. I am not proposing a series of events, am I ? And since I am not proposing a SERIES of events there is ABOSLUTELY NO SLIPPERY SLOPE. NONE! ZILCH! NADA!

  Here is a typical example of slippery slope. Farkel is out to prove his manhood. If you let Farkel get away with one false accusation then the next thing you know he will embolden himself to make false accusations on other threads. This will totally side track every thread where he tries this. Pretty soon it will be impossible to post anything because along will come Farkel misapplying some fallacy to prove his manhood. People will then be afraid to post anything because they won't want to get caught up in endless posts defending themselves against Farkels manhood enhancing assaults. Eventually people will just quit posting and that will be the end of this whole forum.

  Of course I don't believe any of that. But it is an example of the type of Fallacy you are trying to nail me with. Did you notice the SERIES? First this happens, then that will happen , and this result in something else and finally the worst thing happens.

  I simply said that if you believe that justice is done when laws are enforced equally to punish ALL wrongdoers then ALL those guilty of the same or similar offences should ALL receive the same punishment. But I repeat that ain't gonna happen cuz the Ruskies are wacked. The whole world knows what is going on there and it is not acceptable to the world community.

  You also seemed confused by the way I constructed my premise and conclusion. I said you would have to ban all religions if the objective was to be fair/just. I didn't say that they would ACTUALLY BE FAIR. If they were fair they wouldn't ban any religion at the instigation of another religion.

  This is where you wrongfully take my words out of context.

  I didn't say "If you ban Jehovah's Witnesses you would have to Ban all religions" Well yes I did say that but I didn't say that without qualifications. Immediately before I said THAT I said "...it is also the responsibility for a government to apply the law equally to ALL citizens." THEN I said If you ban Jehovah's Witnesses you would have to Ban all religions. PLEASE NOTICE THIS IS NOT A SEQUENCE.

  I really don't believe you were setting up a straw man. It is too obious that you misunderstood what I said. But how could someone so smart mis-understand such a simple statement?
• 

  proplog2

  Farkel:

  Do you really think banning a religion is good for society? You said:

  Hooooooray for Russia!

  Am I taking that out of context in any way?
• 

  Farkel

  proplog2,

  : I am not proposing a series of events. I am not even predicting a future outcome of banning JW's. I said that if you are going to follow the principle of applying the law equally to all cases then you would have to ban all religions. Well I would concede perhaps not ALL religions.

  You would have saved us both a lot of time had you merely stated a question instead of an assertion: "The banning of religions in the past has lead to the banning of even more religions, until all religions except the State religion were illegal. If Jehovahs Witnesses are banned, could this not lead to the same event in Russia?"

  Also, you are attempting to split hairs regarding the slippery slope fallacy by claiming that there must be a "series" of events to occur. In my book on logic it gives this example of the slippery slope:

  "If you don't respect life and ban abortion, pretty soon people will lose all respect for life and will be killing each other in the streets."

  Now that fallacy may be defined differently by various people, but the key part of that fallacy is that larger and disastrous consequences will occur if one particular event occurs.

  It is highly unreasonable to think that the Russian government would ban JWs one day and announce in the near future, "by the way all religions but the state religion are also banned." Likely they would use the divide and conquer approach by banning the weakest and most vulnerable religions and then move on to the next level of weak religions. By using this approach the people whose religions are already banned won't feel any sympathy as other religions are also banned, until there is no one left to complain. This is the strategy countries use when they draft into their militaries: first draft the youngest and weakest segments of the society, the 18 year olds. Then draft those single people in their early 20's. Then draft young married men, etc.

  So you see, your statement was still a slippery slope even by your own definition!
  
  : I didn't say "If you ban Jehovah's Witnesses you would have to Ban all religions" Well yes I did say that but I didn't say that without qualifications. Immediately before I said THAT I said "...it is also the responsibility for a government to apply the law equally to ALL citizens." THEN I said If you ban Jehovah's Witnesses you would have to Ban all religions.

  If your argument is that ALL religions should be allowed in society, what would you think if I started a religion which required its members to kill and eat their own children? Would you say practice of that religion should be banned? I would.

  Assuming you believe such a religious to be dangerous to society and hence banned, then you would have to conclude that there is a religious line or lines that cannot be crossed.

  That leads to my argument that the WTS is a destructive cult that is not only harmful to its members but to society in general. I've already given my reasons for thinking this way and won't repeat them now.

  Any religion that consciously goes out of its way to promote the destruction of the family unit (via DFing and shunning) is dangerous to society.

  : Do you really think banning a religion is good for society?
  Religions that are dangerous to society should be banned, yes.

  : You said:

  : Hooooooray for Russia!

  Yes, I did. Hoooooooray for Russia!

  Of course this statement was made in the context of what is true about the WTS. I desire no religion that is benign to be banned and in fact think people have a right to practice such religions as they see fit.

  Farkel
• 

  proplog2

  Farkel:

  You know we are really on the same side--- of the Hexagon.

  But you do tend to be a fallacy monger. You have demonstrated a kind of obsession with identifying fallacies in posts.Such pouncing on others creates more alienation than clarification. The fallacy you were trying to point out, in a pedantic fashion, was not even my central thesis but actually a casual comment. When you point out errors that have no significant bearing on the basic thrust of the argument you only delay the progress of the discussion and divert attention away from the point at issue.

  I personally love to be caught using a fallacy because it improves my level of argumentation. I will definitely admit it when I am caught. I'm not guilty of the slippery slope fallacy BUT I must say I think you caught me on the "false dilemma" fallacy.

  When you and I have a discussion (and we both usually avoid locking horns) we should probably avoid even using the word fallacy OR the names assigned to fallacies because people are often turned off by such technical jargon. We are both capable of more imaginative ways of focusing attention on patterns of faulty reasoning.

  Finally (and I hope this to be my final statement on this thread) I want to repeat my disappointment that you think banning JW's in Russia is a constructive and just ruling.
• 

  scotsman

  While I'm afraid of "locking horns" with the big boys, I have to ask:

  Is it accurate to describe JWs as a danger to society? They compromise the lunatic fringe of society in such a small quantity that I don't think they can truly be described as such. While they may have divided some of our families, I don't foresee a time when society will be eroded by the presence of JWs.

  Hopefully I've avoided straw dogs on slippery slopes.
• 

  Farkel

  Proplog2,

  I understand your way of thinking. I just don't agree with it. To ignore logical fallacies in a discussion is to basically say, "I won't call you on your bullshit if you don't call me on my bullshit."

  It's ok if you don't want to play with me, but if you do, don't make up the rules by which I should play, especially if they include eliminating the truth (logically speaking) from any discussions we might have.

  scotsman,

  : Is it accurate to describe JWs as a danger to society? They compromise the lunatic fringe of society in such a small quantity that I don't think they can truly be described as such. While they may have divided some of our families, I don't foresee a time when society will be eroded by the presence of JWs.

  Unless you don't define "society" as a composite of its components, like the family unit for instance. No one ever asserted that the JW religion could erode the majority of the components of society. Of course they can't! They are a puny little religion! But do they do damage to the components of society and thus weaken the infrastructure of society? Of course they do.

  A danger to any family is a danger to society nonetheless. Otherwise, one could argue "why was that serial killer convicted and executed? After all, he only killed 13 people and there are 300,000,000 people in this Country. HOW therefore, could he be deemed a danger to our society?"

  Get my drift?

  Farkel
• 

  scotsman

  Farkel

  Nice comparison. But shunning and dfing will continue whether the religion is state recognized or not, and the Russian state's record of human rights abuses is, in my opinion, more dangerous than the presence of Witnesses. While my family shun me, I have no desire to have them prosecuted by the state for it, or for the state to allow their persecution.