Posted by J.H. [JH] on March 29, 1999 at 23:10:51 {7nb3mCfGvUHSG.vl05doHR5JhS9/hc}:
In Reply to: **Request To aLL !? posted by JWGenXer on March 29, 1999 at 13:32:13:
JWGenXer,
: 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."
That's not an ad hominem! You've misunderstood it completely.
: 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."
Uh, since nobody can prove a negative, total absense of postive evidence is the strongest possible evidence against it. Again you didn't understand.
: 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.."
Again you don't understand. These are two assertions. If you added "therefor he must be wrong about X", you would demonstrate a Non Sequitur fallacy.
: 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?."
Why do you think this is begging the question?
: 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."
Why do you think this is begging the question?
: 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."
Obviously, again, you don't understand what an argument is. These are two assertions. To be a fallacy of logic, it must be an attempt to make a conclusion follow from a premise.
It is quite ironic that various JW apologists have tried in the past here to find examples of "apostate fallacies",
and they always demonstrate total lack of understanding of what an argument is. Last poster who tried the same thing called himself "Proud brother", and he did much of the same errors you do.