if you look on page 10, "what is god's purpose for the earth?," you'll see an illustration of adam in the garden--with a belly button!!
what were the wt artists thinking????.
i'd post a scan but, alas, i'm unable to in my present locale..
On the other hand- I have been asleep for the past 20 years!!! I am old and uneducated( haven't been able to copy and paste any blurbs!!!LOL)
and it was only recently that I discovered I was in a cult!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dang, Rip, I bet you had one helluva case of "two decade" breath... ;)
Farkel,
That's not the point. They are still logical fallacies.
You were taught classical or traditional (Aristotlean) logic, which has been replaced by a more pragmatic, real-world approach used in modern, abstract (symbolic) logic. The info posted above represents modern logic.
Teaching of traditional logic has vanished from collegiate-level education for quite sometime now (unless you're a philosophy major, I think), having gone the way of the slide rule, back in the 1960's.
Here's an example of why:
For logic to work properly, one MUST assume the premises are true and the conclusion MUST be the only thing that can result from the premises.
That's all well and good, but what if the one of the premises ISN'T true, but merely appears to be true to a casual observer?
Take the example of an "appeal to authority":
If I appeal to Newton's authority in the field of physics, and that information is still considered the 'correct' answer (by consensus of the modern scientific community), then nothing in the argument is considered fallacious, false, or fallacy: it's a LEGITIMATE use of the "appeal to authority" argument, using an expert's (correct) opinion upon which to support the premise. For example:
"According to Newton, every object in a state of motion tends to stay in that state of motion"
"Therefore, every object in a state of motion tends to stay in that state of motion".
Nothing about that is statement is fallacious: it's a legitimate, correct, TRUE use of an "appeal to authority" argument.
HOWEVER, if I appeal to an expert who's opinion or conclusion on the subject IS wrong, or who's credentials are questionable (where further digging is needed to verify their expertise), then the argument becomes the "appeal to authority" FALLACY.
For instance, Aristotle believed humans thought with their hearts: he was flat-out wrong.
So if I say,
"According to Aristotle, humans think with their hearts."
"Therefore, humans think with our hearts"
That IS an example of the "appeal to authority" FALLACY: I'm appealing to an authority figure who unfortunately IS wrong (and is known to be wrong, as the scientific community has reached firm concensus that we actually think with our BRAINS, not our hearts).
Now, checking what I said, that you objected to:
The thing to remember is these are potential fallacies, eg a statement may be made using an 'appeal to authority' but that's not proof that it IS false.
What I was warning about is that some beginners see that someone is relying on an expert's opinion, and they automatically conclude, "oh, that's an appeal to authority FALLACY, so it's wrong!" Nope: it's a potential fallacy, since it's not known whether it a correct appeal, or a false appeal: t's not proven to be either, until you've considered other evidence (like current scientific consensus, etc).
(then you get into "battle of the expert witnesses" territory, where the defendent's lawyer tries to beat up the credibility of the plaintiff's expert, and vice-versa....)
this recent video has already appeared on a few threads, but i thought it deserved it's own.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob7vynx8evg.
The persona of Anonymous can be somewhat creepy sometimes. W hat could they do that those on this board haven't been doing for years, only with a lot more finesse?
I am concerned the tone will cause many Witnesses to rally around Mother, especially since they believe that any time now, Satan will led the world in an all out attack on the organization. Not to mention the whole Evil Slave mythology. These are memes the Scientologists did not have…therefore it wouldn't backfire as much.
Yeah, whoever made the video defo over-produced it, to the point of giving ME (an ex-JW) the creeps, what with the twisted music. And the trademark Guy Falkes mask is just going to be misunderstood: it just comes off as demonic, not out to protect any children. I'm feeling a circling of the wagons over-reaction by the JWs, more than anything, just reinforcing their "we're being persecuted!" paranoia.
Cedars said:
However, I'm still glad they're taking an interest.
There is no "they", as YOU or anyone else here with the skills COULD actually be a part of "them": Anon recruits people to support an OP, which may or may not go anywhere. Most fade away and die, but a few get media's attention. Maybe this one will?
Some one hacked the Sony website a while ago. I am sure the WTBTS isn't that secure. If you piss off the wrong people with tech-skills, you are going to have problems. Get enough kids with skills that have been molested and you are screwed.
That would be George Hotz, a young kid who achieved some measure of notariety after he figured out how to jailbreak the iPhone (jailbreaking is legal, per a Copyright Office Statement). He then hacked into the Sony PlayStation system to bypass it's DMCA copy protection, but ended up getting prosecuted by Sony for copyright infringement. Hotz settled out of court with Sony before the case went to a jury, and GeoHotz paid a fine, and promised not to hack into Sony gear ever again.
Soldier 77 said:
Anonymous should be taken very seriously. Tech savvy degree'd programmers forming an online coalition of anonymity used in a focused assault can wreck havoc on any institution.
Risky stuff.... I've been following Anon's actions for a few years over on Arstechnica (a tech site), and more than a few people have had their front doors kicked in with real-live FBI agents pointing firearms at them, stun grenades fired inside, their families taken down on the ground, with warrants, dogs, seized computers, etc. Anon went after gov't agencies (including local PDs, but even CIA and DoD) a few years ago, which was a BIG MISTAKE: it means they got the attention of the Feds they wanted, who responded in force.
Even the suspicion of working with Anon is the kiss of death for anyone working in a tech career: convicted of unauthorized access of a computer means you can could on being DFed from your career, with little chance of reinstatement. Wayyyyy risky (which anyone who works in IT already knows), but some will be willing to do it (I'm not a programmer, myself).
Here's a 30 yr old Linux admin who was tracked down and charged by Feds:
Plenty more stuff on Anon on Arstechnica; just use their search for "Anon"....
http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.
hello citizens of the world.
we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.
holy crap here it is:
http://anonnews.org/press/item/1656/
Whaddaya know? So there is a press release.
However, the thing to remember is what I suggested earlier, as found on their FAQ page:
http://anonnews.org/static/faq
This section will discuss some questions that come up fairly often. If you have any other relevant questions, feel free to join the IRC channel.
This question comes up quite often. Anonymous does not have a membership list, and you can't really 'join' it either. If you identify with or say you are Anonymous, you are Anonymous. Noone has the authority to say whether you are Anonymous or not, except for yourself.
Anons can be found all over the world - and all over the internet. There are no leaders or official spokespersons, and no official websites, IRC networks, or anything else. Basically, if you want to talk to Anonymous, join a random IRC network or forum and start talking to anons! A starting point may be, for example, the AnonNews IRC channel.
No, not at all! Any anon is welcome to post on AnonNews, and there is no active affiliation with AnonOps. You can read more about this issue here.
You can't. AnonNews is uncensored (but moderated), and everyone has equal rights to post press releases (or forum posts, or anything else). As long as something is relevant and fits the guidelines, it will be published, regardless of pressure to take it down. There is one exception to this rule, and that is press releases that pretend to be made by the staff of a specific network or operation, while actually being made by an outsider. In this case the network/operation staff can request removal of the press release (this only goes for operations and networks with a defined leadership structure). Other than the aforementioned situation, don't bother trying to get something removed.
If your submission doesn't show up after a while, that means it probably didn't fit the guidelines. If you think a submission was rejected in error, you can contact an administrator in the IRC channel. Please don't resubmit your submissions.
To upvote a press release, you will have to post a comment that is at least 2 lines long, and at least 100 characters long. This is to prevent pointless '+1' posts just to upvote a press release. Simply enter a comment, and if your comment is long enough, a checkbox to upvote the press release will appear on the captcha verification page.
if you look on page 10, "what is god's purpose for the earth?," you'll see an illustration of adam in the garden--with a belly button!!
what were the wt artists thinking????.
i'd post a scan but, alas, i'm unable to in my present locale..
From the Omphalos controversy (1857):
Of course, the Omphalos argument fell into disrepute with everybody almost immediately. Many just laughed at it, but others were deeply offended by the idea of God being a lying and deceitful prankster who had written an enormous and superfluous lie in the rocks.But even worse for many believers was the thought that the events of the Bible, most
importantly the Resurrection, might have never happened and so their faith might be
based solely on a Divine Hoax.Hmmm, imagine that?
so anonymous has declared its intentions to utterly destroy the watchtower society.
this will likely include attacking the official websites and trying to obtain the database of 23,000+ pedophiles in the organization.. i have never served at bethel so i would appreciate the input of those who have.
do you think they are taking this threat seriously?.
AFAIK the IT department at Bethel is a bunch of retards. I have helped one of them set up a system a while back, the guy just got assigned and had no clue what he was doing. I don't know if they got anyone in the mean time but I doubt there would be a lot of CS degrees in there
I dare say their response will be to yank the phone cord from the 14.4k dial-up modem, and unplug the Commodore 64 and wait a few days before plugging it back in. :)
http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.
hello citizens of the world.
we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.
Rebel8, odd, as there's absolutely no trace of the report on Arstechnica. Googling for "Anonymous attack Jehovah's Witnesses" gives hits: but the 1st two are to this site (and 3rd is a forum on topix). I haven't dug into it deeply, and read all the threads here (in fact, I didn't realize the 'anonymous' word in the titles was referring to attacks by Anon, the hacking outfit!), but I'll dig around some more. Right this moment, I'm inclined to call BS, as if someone's pranking someone.
If it IS for realz, it's not making much of a splash in terms of web presence. Any random dude can buy a Guy Falkes mask and make a video, posting it on YouTube....
http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.
hello citizens of the world.
we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.
Yeah, I'm headed over to arstechnica.com to see what they have to say about it: they are well-connected journalists, and up on tech side (obviously).
http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.
hello citizens of the world.
we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.
Rebel 8 asked:
So I ask again: Is there any actual evidence the group Anonymous is really involved in anti-wts activity? How do we know this is not 1 random guy with a mask making videos and blogging, who has nothing to do with 4chan?
Anon is NOT an organized group, with offical spokespersons, etc. In fact, ANYONE can claim to represent them, and sometimes will use the logo. Splinter cells can spontaneously form for certain actions, without knowing exactly who's involved, and dismantle just as quickly. So there is no way of knowing for sure (other than IT guys who can record the attacks, if DDOS, or if there's attempted break-ins by looking at activity on server's ports for cracking attempts; or worse case, if they manage to break in, the actual files are posted to piratebay, etc).
http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.
hello citizens of the world.
we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.
The way they respond to developments such as this proposed attack by Anonymous may not necessarily make sense to them or to others.
We know exactly how it'll be interpreted: Satan is attacking us!!!
BTW, Anonymous doesn't care about causes or "saving the children":they are not an outlaw band of renegades out to make the World a better place, or right wrongs, etc. There's no organizational structure (think of like Al Qaeda, with loosely members connected only by an ideology), so there's no GB to lead/prosecute. They will engage in attacks that are often contradictory, or done only for "the LULZ" (done purely out of joy of watching the chaos they can cause).
They could care less about the damaging outcome of their public disclosures: that's not their concern, in the least.
I followed the Anon attack of some security firm (can't remember their name, but they had claimed to IDed Anon members) a few years ago on Arstechnica (a website that has excellent coverage of Anon-actions), and the fact is Anon's public disclosure of wrongdoing actually renders some evidence as inadmissable in court, since the defense can complain that the information was possibly tainted as it was outside of their chain of custody.
So Anon's actions are NOT always a good thing, if you're looking for your justice in the form of that kind delivered in a court room, and not simply as a public spectacle done trying to embarrass potential defendents.
