Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 18, 1999 at 16:58:43 {KEdmzBXaT6HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: **************AP and AF posted by Friend on November 18, 1999 at 16:29:36:
Friend,
::You may not say you demand it but you act as if you do because nothing will convince you or Greg of certain things.
:Convince me of what, that the Society has manifested some dishonesty? My belief is that the Society has manifested some dishonesty. The question is whether you or I can convince others of that conviction. My point is that for various reasons I cannot so convince everyone
because people will take different views based upon their own weighing of evidence and perspective. While I will certainly act upon my own beliefs should I ignore and ridicule others for their beliefs? Should I ruin my health straining that they see it may way? Just how far would you have me go? Giving accurate information to people is enough. Let them decide what they want to do with it, that is their
prerogative and we should respect that.
I certainly agree with all of that. Don't forget, however, that it is not about convincing everyone but of trying to decide between AP's and AF's positions (see the title of your thread). The thread opened up with this statement:
: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.”
H etook that position only after all else failed. Greg, having been backed into a corner, has resorted to his last defense: "one cannot prove motivations." I maintain that one can properly draw reasonable decuctions, as you have, from observing how a person or an organization deals with "evidence." Insofar as Greg's book presents not "accurate information" but a dishonest spin on many things then I think that it is important to pursue these issues.
:My initial comments on this thread only expressed that I did not consider so far that AF had demonstrated his claim as he made it. I see no
need in restating the reasons. Go back and read them if you are that interested.
I have read them already. Several times. I think he did not prove things as Greg would like it. It is almost ridiculous to suppose that anyone would prove something absolutely. Does a lawyer in court mean that he will "absolutely prove" when he gets up on his hind legs and says "I will prove beyond doubt?" It boils down to this: AF forgot that in dealing with someone like Greg all possible bases have to be covered in advance else the eel will escape on a technicality. His omission is, to me, more a mark of honesty and good faith than anything else. He is simply working on the assumption that reasonable people will accept more or less reasonable arguments. Of course, it trivially easy to argue that "reasonable" needs to be defined but, somehow, that is the point. If Greg's argument is that the Society's dishonesty is "not proven" (as in a Scottish courtroom) then that is what his book should say; Are Jehovah's Witnesses False Prophets? Not Proven is the Resounding Answer! Would Franz Franz agree to that were he alive today?
:If you do not think those comments above address the point of your long post then kindly point out what you think I should have also
commented on. I think that above gets to the center of your remarks.
They do. Except for the point about angels but I'd just as soon save that for another day.
:Do you consider countering incorrect claims about the Society a defense of the Society or a defense of what is true?
As Friend might say, it is not "either or." If a lawyer defends an innocent man, is he defending only the truth or the man as well?
Gedanken