What kind of literary device is this?

by EdenOne 14 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • EdenOne

    Can you help me here?

    I know there's a name for this technique but I need a name, nonetheless.

    If I say to my audience: apostates are horrible, satanic, dirty, sinners, mentally diseased etc ... all hateful traits. And then I say: Person A is an apostate. Then my audience will associate all the traits previously associated with "apostate" with Person A. But I can say: I never said Person A was horrible, satanic, dirty, mentally diseased etc

    This literally device / psychological technique has a name. But what is it?

  • cyberjesus

    For starters is a logical fallacy, an association fallacy.

    Person A is B

    Person C is A

    All Persons C are B

  • IWant2Leave


  • Rocketman123

    Character labeling preconditioning

    Ironically there are past leaders of the JWS who were truly apostate , evil , corrupt , unrighteous hypocrites.

  • Rocketman123

    Creating attached identities to people is what the WTS has done, determining who is righteous, loyal , faithfully obedient and with little inherent sin.

    Of course those designations don't reflect upon themselves directly for they are the ones who make up the doctrines and rules of behavior to be follow.

  • Pete Zahut
    Pete Zahut
    I know there's a name for this technique but I need a name, nonetheless.

    I think this might fall under "Begging the Question Fallacy" "or "Circular Reasoning" which is where a claim is made and accepted to be true but one must already accept the premise to be true for the claim to be true. JW's already accept the existence of Satan and that anyone who leaves their organization is an Apostate and is being manipulated by him and is mentally diseased etc. Therefore, anyone who is identified as an apostate, automatically possesses those traits, even though there is no proof of a mental disorder or that Satan even exists.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    False Equivalency

  • EdenOne

    I think cyberjesus got it closer.


    In fact, association fallacy coupled with ad hominem attack.

    thank you

  • Jeffro

    The premises given in the original post are:

    Premise 1 - All B are C

    Premise 2 - A is B

    Implied conclusion - (A is C)

    As such, the syllogism is logically valid, but either or both premises may be rejected as false.

    The specific example given is plainly ad hominem, there are elements of poisoning the well and it is a thought terminating cliche. The term apostate is also being used as a euphemism.

    But, if the person goes on to claim that they did not say ‘A is C’, they are stupid, lying or both, because they have contradicted their premises. See also weasel words, non-denial denial, spin.

  • BluesBrother

    The ad hominem attack is “ sneaky “ in that it diminishes the person without having to deal with his arguments.

    It is also pretty silly if you think about it.

    E.g. Say you are visiting a facility for the criminally insane. Suddenly an inmate comes running down the hallway shouting “Fire! Fire! . Do you reject his warning and say “He’s just nuts ......”

    No , of course not , you get the hell out of there .

    Noticeably, the WTS denigrates ex members, so called apostates, but never answers our legitimate concerns. I guess they can’t.

Share this