# AP and AF

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 17, 1999 at 12:05:01 {xx2d.1sWpQePXjHnUl.IOgnjR4Br/g}:

Regarding the Stafford/Feuerbacher debate

To a good extent I have followed discussions between AF and GS on the issue of whether it can be proven that the Society has deliberately published falsehoods. GS has taken the position that proving that absolutely has not been done. AF counters with something like, “I did not mean prove as in absolutely establish but rather prove with a preponderance of the evidence.” Below is AF’s original contention:

> In my view the JWs are not much better and not much worse than many other groups, and certainly receive no divine direction other than what might be argued that anyone else can receive simply by reading the Bible.

> I hold this opinion for a number of reasons, including certain biblical statements that indicate that God hates liars and is unlikely to appoint and support as his representative any person or group that deliberately promulgates falsehoods. I'm not talking about simple mistakes here, but about deliberate falsehoods.

> Of course, in order to prove that someone has deliberately issued false information, one first must prove that the information in question is false. Then one must prove intent.

> I believe that in the case of JW leaders I can do both.

> If you're up to the challenge, then please let me know.

To me this whole question is not one of preponderance of evidence or/versus absolute proof. I think exclusion is the question.

To me what AF has contended above is that he can establish that the Society deliberately spread falsehoods to the point of excluding other less indicting and legitimate conclusions. That extent goes beyond preponderance of evidence but falls short of absolute proof one way or another.

That constituting a preponderance of evidence is that which a reasonable person can conclude as more probable based upon weight of evidence. It is a degree of proof rather than absolute proof. Absolute proof is unquestionable conclusions based upon evidence.

In cases of establishing dishonesty we must exclude incompetence and/or mistake because intent is exactly that which is attempted to be established. If we cannot exclude incompetence and/or mistake then can we convince a reasonable person to denounce something as dishonest, as we have? I say convince to denounce because that is what is being attempted in this case. We are not just saying that, “In my opinion this is dishonest,” we are saying, “I can prove to you that this is dishonest!” In that case we have already denounced in our own mind, which means we have excluded in our own mind other less indicting conclusions. In that case, for us to prove the same to others then we must likewise prove our conclusion to the exclusion of the less indicting.

The problem in this case with applying preponderance of evidence toward a claim is that probability does not exclude other explanations that may not be the most probably but nevertheless have some reasonable degree of legitimacy. I hold that for AF’s contention to be established he must prove intentional deception to the exclusion of incompetence and/or mistakes. I do not think AF has done that and I think he agrees that while his conclusions may be evidenced as probable it does not go to the extent of excluding incompetence and/or mistakes.

In all of this the problem has to do with what conclusions reasonable people will draw. Reasonable people can see it several ways, which likely would reflect varying probabilities. In short, conclusions are subjective. Compounding the problem of what to conclude based upon reasonablness is that individuals tend to consider themselves reasonable. Then the question becomes, “Who is reasonable,” and on and on we go.

I do not like the tone of response between AF and GS. But, the subject is quite intimate for both and in such discussions there will likely be displays of temper and sarcasm from both sides. Either way the most important thing is having the discussion. Really it matters not whether either side agrees. More importantly there has been an exchange of information and perspectives. More importantly in this case is that an exchange of information and views has occurred publicly. That leaves people free to draw more informed conclusions, which is the key. Regardless of agreement there should be respect for an individual’s willingness and effort to respond and share ideas. If we do not like their ideas or consider them beneath us then just ignore them. If we choose to respond then present the case and get on with it.

It is my fondest hope that all sides will see the need to pursue discussions on important issues for Jehovah’s Witnesses, regardless if they agree or not. In so doing it will enable everyone to better consider their own choices in life in respect to those subjects.

I agree with GS that AF should apologize for some of his remarks.

AF, It was never a valid position to say that Greg’s “blanket denial” in respect to Schroeder was less then what it addressed, namely every aspect of your claim. It was never valid to claim that TravisJ45-II was trivial to TravisJ45-I. Indeed, I hold that the fact of a second immediately following explanatory TravisJ45-II was more damning that the initial TravisJ45-I, at least it should have been held very suspiciously. I can hardly convince myself that your sharp mind was as oblivious to that as you claimed. Also, if it is true that you received that email as GS posted, then you cannot reasonable expect us to believe that you were as unaware of TravisJ45-II as you claimed afterward, or that it was trivial. For this you owe an apology. I will not be personally affected one way or another if you apologize or not. I just wanted to state my view for you and others to see because I have done the same in respect to GS.

Now I suggest we all swallow our puny egos and discuss issues. Let’s forget about which individual is right or wrong and hear what each has to say. We can disagree and consider ourselves right, but that is about as important as whether it rained one year ago yesterday. Far more important is the discussion itself.

Friend

Follow Ups:

- *AP and AF AF 14:52:35 11/17/99 (11)
  - **AP and AF Tantalus 17:56:28 11/17/99 (0)
  - **AP and AF Gedanken 15:38:50 11/17/99 (4)
    - ***AP and AF Friend 15:55:44 11/17/99 (3)
      - ****AP and AF Gedanken 16:12:50 11/17/99 (2)
        - *****AP and AF Friend 17:13:05 11/17/99 (1)
          - ******AP and AF Gedanken 17:37:45 11/17/99 (0)
  - **AP and AF Friend 15:29:09 11/17/99 (4)
    - ***AP and AF AF 20:36:25 11/17/99 (3)
      - ****AP and AF Friend 21:38:39 11/17/99 (2)
        - *****AP and AF AF 07:52:42 11/18/99 (1)
          - ******AP and AF Friend 09:30:06 11/18/99 (0)
- *AP and AF Gedanken 13:38:59 11/17/99 (0)
- *AP and AF Gedanken 13:29:51 11/17/99 (2)
  - **AP and AF Friend 13:47:37 11/17/99 (1)
    - ***AP and AF Gedanken 14:54:02 11/17/99 (0)
- *AP and AF GP 12:33:50 11/17/99 (0)
- *AP and AF Seeker 12:28:18 11/17/99 (40)
  - **AP and AF Friend 12:50:33 11/17/99 (39)
    - ***AP and AF Seeler 13:14:20 11/17/99 (19)
      - ****AP and AF Friend 13:36:01 11/17/99 (18)
        - *****AP and AF Seeker 16:51:19 11/17/99 (1)
          - ******AP and AF AF 20:45:27 11/17/99 (0)
        - *****AP and AF Gedanken 13:52:32 11/17/99 (15)
          - ******AP and AF Friend 14:12:56 11/17/99 (14)
            - *******AP and AF Gedanken 15:16:37 11/17/99 (12)
              - ********AP and AF WW 20:04:16 11/17/99 (0)
              - ********AP and AF Friend 15:42:49 11/17/99 (10)
                - *********AP and AF Gedanken 16:03:54 11/17/99 (9)
                  - **********AP and AF Friend 16:44:11 11/17/99 (8)
                    - ***********AP and AF Gedanken 17:28:50 11/17/99 (7)
                      - ************AP and AF Friend 20:48:44 11/17/99 (6)
                        - *************AP and AF Gedanken 14:42:16 11/18/99 (5)
                          - **************AP and AF Friend 16:29:36 11/18/99 (4)
                            - ***************AP and AF Gedanken 16:58:43 11/18/99 (3)
                              - ****************AP and AF Friend 12:48:32 11/22/99 (2)
                                - *****************AP and AF Gedanken 16:06:36 11/22/99 (1)
                                  - ******************AP and AF Friend 16:18:31 11/22/99 (0)
            - *******AP and AF Gedanken 15:14:11 11/17/99 (0)
    - ***AP and AF JF 13:11:29 11/17/99 (18)
      - ****AP and AF Friend more... 14:41:24 11/17/99 (14)
        - *****AP and AF Tantalus 18:25:29 11/17/99 (0)
        - *****AP and AF Julie 16:18:46 11/17/99 (11)
          - ******AP and AF Friend 17:06:46 11/17/99 (10)
            - *******AP and AF AF 21:01:43 11/17/99 (9)
              - ********AP and AF Friend 21:51:13 11/17/99 (8)
                - *********AP and AF Julie 11:25:25 11/18/99 (5)
                  - **********AP and AF Friend 15:50:14 11/18/99 (1)
                    - ***********AP and AF Julie 17:20:50 11/18/99 (0)
                  - **********AP and AF Gedanken 15:30:19 11/18/99 (2)
                    - ***********AP and AF Friend 16:08:19 11/18/99 (1)
                      - ************AP and AF Gedanken 16:25:19 11/18/99 (0)
                - *********AP and AF AF 06:35:49 11/18/99 (1)
                  - **********AP and AF Friend 07:42:35 11/18/99 (0)
        - *****AP and AF Cygnus 14:47:58 11/17/99 (0)
      - ****AP and AF Friend 13:25:15 11/17/99 (0)
      - ****AP and AF Farkel 13:24:30 11/17/99 (1)
        - *****AP and AF JF 14:40:44 11/17/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *AP and AF

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]