True, or FAlse? (page 5)

Friend

SolidSender

Do you understand the term argumentum ad nauseam? I ask only because that has been your entire method of responding to my comments, that is except for that one instance where you [url= http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=527&page=2&site=3]embarrassed yourself trying to be analytical.[/url] Are you yet relying on that pocket dictionary or yours?

What a waste.

Kismet

Friend has readily admitted (and Friend, correct me if I am wrong- smirk) that the Society has problems. That it isn't perfect. But when it comes to the minutest detail he will call people to task if it isn't accurate or if in some way might distort facts.

Saying the Society has problems or that it’s less than perfect is an understatement.

When it comes to detail, that’s where true and false are usually resolved. Shrinking from discussing details often results in delusion.

For example, if some said that a hateful message was typed in 11 pt TimesNewRoman. Friend would likely focus on the fact that it wasn't Times New Roman it was Garamond font, therefore how much stock can be placed in the rest of your story when you can't even get that little detail right. The font type is really irrelevant but it was in fact inaccurately stated. How can you argue with that?? This is often the type of minutia that seems to concern Friend at times.

What you have represented here is that I employ the argument of irrelevant conclusion. I would very much like an example my doing so to be pointed out. As for nitpicking some point of insignificance, why don’t you let SolidSender explain the validity (or not) of using learned as past tense for learn. Since he is so analytical I am sure he won’t mind explaining why the point is worthy of criticism.

A good debate can be a valuable exercise and Friend does give one a workout. But I also realize that there are times when it is better to remain silent. Timing, and all that...

There is nothing like debate for deepening or correcting understanding and thinking ability. It is a pity that so few people are willing to learn the merits of good argument.

Friend

Kismet

(I apologize in advance if my format attempt fails)

Friend:

What you have represented here is that I employ the argument of irrelevant conclusion. I would very much like an example my doing so to be pointed out.

From this thread actually is case in point.

Your representation that a “Bethel Elder” had fingers waved in his face along with other overt and public displays of criticism sounds like embellishment has been introduced into a incident. If that part of the story is embellished then maybe other parts are too, like the actual reaction of those publishers.

You isolated minutia and attempted to use that to infer that the rest of the story was embellished or of little merit. However in the above referenced case it was an assumption of error on your part and not a factual error.

Might I suggest that if you want to discuss logic/arguments we start another thread so as to not side-track this one?

I leave that to you.

A la prochaine, mon ami.

Kismet

Edited by - Kismet on 24 July 2000 13:39:43

Edited by - Kismet on 24 July 2000 13:41:0

Carmel

It seems that the pursuit of truth gets lost in the chest pounding and labeling of fallacious logic. Scoring points is more important than finding common ground, being the debate king more important than generating good will.

Oh well, you will know them by there fruitcakes!

carmel going back to the other board

Friend

Kismet

From this thread actually is case in point [of an irrelevant conclusion].

No, it is not. On this thread I asserted my feeling that your representation contained embellishment. I did not argue that because embellishment may have occurred that your story was false, in fact I said such a conclusion was impossible. What I did do was explain that if what is already anecdotal is also embellished that it is significantly weakened, weakened to the point that others can only be more skeptical of it, that is with more skepticism than such evidence already deserves.

To demonstrate the nature of the problem I likewise used anecdotal evidence along with a few established facts. The difference between our use of anecdotal is that you used an incident of extremism as if it is common when it is not. On the other hand I offered a more tenable scenario based upon the norm.

So, the detail I isolated was not a counter-argument to your conclusion, which you apparently believe it to be, but rather only a reason for viewing what was already anecdotal with more skepticism. Creating such skepticism is necessary because so few understand inherent problems with relying on anecdotal evidence. Many do have the tendency that, “If he said it happened, well, it must have happened.” Anecdotal evidence must always be looked at with skepticism.

As for my conclusions of the initial issue, you have expressed no problem with it.

A la prochaine, mon ami.

Perhaps.

Friend

Grunt

Hello All,
I am new here but have enjoyed reading so much I decided to register. False, in not all but most instances family ties are severed. I am surprised that they would put this up as even the strongest witness knows it is a lie and it erodes their credibility to any honest person.

Seven

Hello Grunt, Welcome!
7

SolidSender

.

Edited by - SolidSender on 10 August 2000 4:1:6

SolidSender

.

Edited by - SolidSender on 10 August 2000 4:1:46

Friend

SolidSender

[Friend] consistently postulates & projects highly subjective (not to mention deluded, second hand) opinion as absolute objective fact.

We see you have the nerve to hurl such an insult. Now let’s see if you are big enough to show us some evidence of it. Show us just one single example of what you described above. Just one! Remember Hyman Rickover?

We see that argumentum ad nauseam is not in your pocket dictionary. Seriously, was that last diatribe the best you could muster? It seemed like a lot of verbiage to say, "I don’t like Friend because he called me to account for an incredibly stupid display of mine and I also have trouble answering the simplest of his questions, even after saying I will answer."

Keep’um comin! Thars gots t’bee mur entirtanin n dat dar mine u’yorn!

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 25 July 2000 0:6:13

Zep

Friend, i get the impression that your a real society man at times, that you believe they are Gods chosen or however else you want to phrase it.You seem to be subtly defending them most times, like your a real believer. On the blood issue though, your different, your quit forthright that the society is wrong there.But you did say once from memory, that their pasts policies on blood were "understandable"?.For me, i could never make light of their past policies by saying it was understandable!.They were just wrong, very wrong in my mind.

Its just my impression of you, that your more for the Society than against, and that you hold them in high esteem, higher than you care to mention here.So..Straight up, what do you really believe, how do you really see your society and its major docrines like 1914 and the whole revelation bit, and DFing, its history etc, what makes you stick with them? are they the Truth or what in your eye?.How do you see opposers of the WT, who have them labelled a high control "cult" ???????????

Just curious?

True, or FAlse?

Share this