Posted by Seeker [Seeker] on March 29, 1999 at 13:52:55 {79YAW9JMpc7zhCCCIL7.MWlbkYYamxmSw}:
In Reply to: **Request To aLL !? posted by JWGenXer on March 29, 1999 at 13:32:13:
I like to see this kind of response. Well done. Now, let's take a look at what you said in comparison to what I said. Every sample argument I gave has been stated by JW's in my presence. I didn't make them up, I merely used what I had heard.
Perhaps you've heard anti-JW's say every argument you listed. If so, I have no argument with your list. But I suspect some of your examples are just made up to try to prove a point.
Ad Hominem Attacks (argumentum ad
hominem): attacking a person's character instead of the
content of that person's argument.
"JW's are robots and can't think for themselves anyway."
Clearly there are some JW's who think for themselves -- some come to H2O, for instance, even though the WTS condemns this. Yet any JW who thinks for themselves is violating the written instructions against 'independent thinking', so this statement is more true than not.
Argument From Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam): concluding that something is true since you can't prove it is false.
"There must not be a God, since no one can demonstrate that he does exist."
This would be an unusual statement to make. Most atheists decline to believe in a God on a personal level, but I've never heard this particular argument used.
Appeal To Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam): appealing to a person's unfortunate circumstance
as a way of getting someone to accept a
conclusion.
"Don't be so hard on the Apostates, they have been so brutally shunned and are really good people searching for the truth"
I've not heard this one used. Have you?
Argumentum Ad Populum: going along with the crowd in support of a conclusion.
"Everyone with their eyes open know that there are satanic pictures in the illustrations of WTS publications."
This one I've heard, and I disagree with it. I don't think there are hidden pictures in the publications. I guess I have my eyes closed.
Appeal To Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): appealing to a popular figure who is not an
authority in that area.
"Gloria Estefan/John Denver doesn't like JW's, therefore it must be a cult."
Hardly. Who would say that? There are plenty of cult-like characteristics of JW's. There's no need to state something as absurd as this.
Non Sequitur (irrelevant conclusion): drawing a conclusion which does
not follow from the
evidence.
"President "Booze" was the second president of the Watchtower Society, and he eaned heavily on the bottle. Nothing could make him more furious than
someone trying to take away his bottle.."
Improper example. You need to come up with one line of argument, and then go off on a completely different tangent for this type of argument to work. You provided two sentences that support the same line of argument.
False Cause (post hoc ergo procter hoc): inferring a causal connection based on mere correlation.
Just look at Tallyman's post about the Non-JW in NC who killed his kids and then shot himself. The WT had to be at fault somewhere there...
Good example. Tallyman may well be making a logical fallacy here. I don't know enough of the facts to say one way or the other.
Begging The Question (petitio principii): implicitly using your conclusion as a premise.
"Naturally the Watchtower leaders knew this, but instead they let Frost white wash his past on this convention! Is there something those people do not lie about?."
Good example, but usually the contention about lies are backed up with actual examples, so in practice, anti-JW's do not use this particular line of argumentation.
OR
"This has all been posted in the past, but as these rules keep being violated by the JW's who post here, this can be a good
reminder."
Clever kid, trying to use my own words against me, eh? Sorry, this is not an example of improper argumentation. In fact, JW's have used logical fallacies repeatedly on H2O. The fact that opposers sometimes do the same does not change that fact. Would you like me to point out JW examples whenever it happens? It happens often.
Red Herring: introducing an irrelevant or secondary subject and thereby diverting attention from the main subject.
"Apostates never lie, and, besides, they are wonderful people who are really searching for the truth."
Um, not quite, for both lines of argument tend to support the idea that apostates lean toward truth.
Straw Man: distorting an opposing view so that it is easy to refute.
"You should avoid JW's, since JW's don't believe in Medical Treatment."
Yes, a common misconception about JW's. However, a misconception is not a Straw Man. It could just be ignorance. Now, if you point out that JW's do accept medical treatment, and they still say the above, then you've got a Straw Man.
Seeker