JW Defenders- Is WTS Right to Insist You Stay Away From these Websites? (page 27)

OnTheWayOut

I wish I would get the same response to my Comments.

I typically respond to your hard work, but we don't banter back and forth after I say something.

Stop poking the bear with a stick and he'll get bored.

blondie

(Proverbs 26:4) 4 Do not answer anyone stupid according to his foolishness, that you yourself also may not become equal to him.

reniaa

Oh dear I'm sorry spike I guess it's official your honeymoon period on this forum has passed and now you are firmly to be attacked 'ad hominem' by a small group of die hard anti-witnesses. /comfort.

If you wonder why I am posting again you have a Poster whom I won't mention by name. That asked me to return even though he doesn't share my pro-JW viewpoints. He respects my right to my opinion which is more than a few I could mention.

For future reference any personally attacking aggressive posts to me, I will just label 'ad hominem' since they are nothing about the debat in hand and everything about decrediting another poster. Ahem Isaac please read the following

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument . Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim , her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character , circumstances , or actions of the person reporting the claim ). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of " argument " has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

Reniaa

isaacaustin

That's a good link and definition. I hope you can learn from that and be nonjudgmental in your postings.

Show that respect and you will get it right back. To say you do not beleive in the trintiy/hellfire/etc is fine. To make judgmental statements about others who do...that is another story.

Debating a point is fine. Throwing scriptures back and forth is fine. Judging all others who believe in/or do not beleive in a certain doctrine...or the use of pejoratives such as 'the pagan xyz doctrine' does nothing for the debate either, does it? Wordy but says a whole lot of nothing. Keep it academic and i will do the same.

Want to call a truce under those above terms? If either of us catch the other simply shoot a pm where we have crossed the line? Works for me.

gubberningbody

Actually not all adhominems are invalid in practice.

Sometimes an argument against the person is okay. Sometimes personal traits are relevant.
Suppose that 19 year-old Smith wants to be the babysitter of your collicky 5 month-old infant, and she argues thusly:

1. When I was 14 I babysat my 5 month old cousin every night for one year.
2. Therefore I am qualified to babysit your 5 month old.

Now assume I introduce the following counter- argument, all of the premises of which happen to be true:

1. Smith has spent the last 5 years in a program for teenage crystal meth addicts.
2. Smith spent her time in that program as part of a sentence resulting from conviction on multiple counts of violence against neighborhood children.
3. Smith has recently posted pictures of herself torturing 5 month-old infants on her personal website.
4. Therefore, Smith should not be your babysitter.

The argument is ( invalid and) technically an "abusive" ad hominem, but it's one worth taking seriously for pragmatic reasons. Character is relevant in this case, and the premises are true. Hence no fallacy is committed.

If one were to reject the argument on the grounds that it was an ad hominem against Smith, one would be acting in both a morally and an epistemically irresponsible way, wouldn't one?

isaacaustin

good points

Finally-Free

I haven't read the entire thread because I don't have the time, but here's my answer to the question:

Is WTS Right to Insist You Stay Away From these Websites?

They have every right to say whatever they please. So do I. They can insist that I "stay away from certain web sites" just as I can tell them to "kiss my ass on CNN".

They like to think they have authority. They don't, unless we give it to them.

W

isaacaustin

LOL they can insist...based on their own self-proclaimed authority. Sadly 7 million captives or so accept their deluded claims.

OUTLAW

Blondie..

I think a lot of us just sit in front of our computers,in Awe of your knowledge..LOL!!

Your probably one of the most read posters on the board..I know I probably read everything you write..

I don`t always post to your post though..Most times you`ve said it all..

.....................OUTLAW

JW Defenders- Is WTS Right to Insist You Stay Away From these Websites?

Description of Ad Hominem

Share this