I'm saying it depends on the context and where they are in their own personal journey. You keep speaking in very generalized terms; maybe you're only thinking of die-hard JWs or JWs you might encounter as they go door-to-door. I was thinking more of ppl on their way out who I might meet in person through JWD or in chat online. I agree that with those fully in the cult, you want to be very careful in the things you say and how you say it, in order to not play into the stereotype of a bitter "apostate", etc. If they came to my door, the conversation would undoubtedly be based on the material or theme that they already selected. But in meeting or talking to those who already have doubts, who are already curious about these things, I think it would not be inappropriate at all to talk about these things if those are things they are curious about. I mean, here at JWD we have lots of different ppl with different worldviews -- some still in the JW theological mindset, some atheists, some agnostics, etc. We're not all cut from the same cloth. I think it depends on the person and on what the person is interested in, if they have certain questions about the Bible or about whether it is inspired, and how reliable it is. I mean, if the issue happens to be creation vs. evolution, I would not hestitate to explain what evolution is and why the biblical story should not be accepted as historical. If this is specifically the issue they are interested in, and if they do have an open mind, would I still bridle my mouth and not go into those things? But even before that, I think with most ppl it is more important to carefully bring up things that would let them critically think about the organization, its history, and why the organization is not from God (and 1914 is part of that), before going into either the niceties of Daniel or the mythological content in the Hebrew Bible.
Most parents will tell you that a number of their arguments with their children are based on a known error. The children know it; we, as parents, know it, but the argument has to occur anyway.
If that's your method, more power to you. But I don't find it intellectually honest and it's not something I would do. I would find another argument to use that isn't actually specious. I think I'd want to do better than stoop to that.