Logical fallacies

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[Greentruth]

Hulda, thinking about what you said I thought of a way I can explain. I think in simpler form, as mostI converse with do as well. I have had a few times where we went out for dinner with new friends, and found them to be very abusing to the servers or management. I have sent back a steak a time or two, but never belittled the server. One couple threw a complete fit over the meal, of which my wife and I didn’t agree was even close to that bad. We declined a few times to go out for dinner from this and they became critical with us. Maybe their meal was not to their standard, but the abuse leveled hurt the server terribly. They could have just said they would not eat at this establishment in the future, but had the mindset to tear down regardless. The management even offered their money back, but they basically threw it back in their face. I have experienced poor help or a meal I didn’t care for, causing me to not return to the establishment, but would never belittle and hurt the server or establishment. I think this example carries over in many areas of our lives, as we found the couple who belittled the server where critical in other circumstances. I have never understood why.

[Huldah]

Thanks for explaining, Greentruth. I'm sorry your former friends treated you and others that way. I think you're saying that, in your eyes, a lot of what goes on in this forum is the same kind of thing your former friends did, is that correct? I understand why it appears that way to you, just as I'm sure you understand that we see it from an entirely different perspective.

I think one thing that makes a big difference is the way we read the posts of those who agree with us, versus the way we read the posts of those who don't. I tend to picture people from "my side" speaking their words in a thoughtful, kind voice, but when I read things from some of "the other side", I often hear them in a hostile voice. And I doubt that I'm the only one doing that. This is not just a problem of social media. It's a problem of the written word in general, online or otherwise.

I have a hunch that some of us who don't seem to think highly of each other online could actually be friends, if we knew each other in person. That doesn't mean we'd be in agreement about everything, but the disagreements would probably be a lot less savage.

[GodisFaithful]

Very good point, Huldah. 

[araignee19]

Hulda, thinking about what you said I thought of a way I can explain. I think in simpler form, as mostI converse with do as well. I have had a few times where we went out for dinner with new friends, and found them to be very abusing to the servers or management. I have sent back a steak a time or two, but never belittled the server. One couple threw a complete fit over the meal, of which my wife and I didn’t agree was even close to that bad. We declined a few times to go out for dinner from this and they became critical with us. Maybe their meal was not to their standard, but the abuse leveled hurt the server terribly. They could have just said they would not eat at this establishment in the future, but had the mindset to tear down regardless. The management even offered their money back, but they basically threw it back in their face. I have experienced poor help or a meal I didn’t care for, causing me to not return to the establishment, but would never belittle and hurt the server or establishment. I think this example carries over in many areas of our lives, as we found the couple who belittled the server where critical in other circumstances. I have never understood why.

I can see what you are saying. But to try and explain the “ad hominem” concept a bit more: let’s say at dinner, those friends stated that, “The moon is made of cheese” (false statement). And let’s say you replied, “no it isn’t because you are attacking the server and therefore are a bad person and don’t know anything about the moon.” That would be an ad hominem attack, because it does not correctly respond to the statement they made, but instead tries to distract from what they said. I think you can see why that would not be a good way to respond to their false statement.

On the other hand, your friends could have argued “the moon is not made from cheese” (true statement). If you replied, “yes it is because you are being mean and therefore don’t know anything about the moon,” that would also be an ad hominem attack and is incorrect. Again, I imagine you can see that.

Ad hominem attacks can be used to argue against true or false things, but it is the way the argument it is done that makes it ad hominem. Likewise, a terrible person can make true and false statements, and a great person can also make true and false statements. Their character alone doesn’t determine which they did.

In relation to the issue of Mark and Suzanne lately, where the ad hominem attacks are often coming in is that people say “Mark did x, y, or z.” And then the response has all too often been “you are a terrible person and you are bitter so Mark could not have done that.”  Do you see the similarity in logic to my hypothetical example and understand how the conclusion (Mark is innocent) could not have been logically arrived at from the response (the accuser is bitter)?

See, the goal of an ad hominem attack is to tear down the person who said something instead of addressing their actual argument. The goal is to launch attacks at a person to distract from the real topic at hand, and it is a cowardly, easy-out when done intentionally. And it makes me mad. And it does NOT lead to any sort of productive conversation. (To huldah’s good point about tone, this is me being passionate, not angry at you)

So if you genuinely care about not tearing people down, as it does seem like you do, I would say a great place to start is by calling out ad hominem attacks wherever they happen, and rebuking those who use them. Have enough care for people to let their arguments be what you respond to, and not their character when it does not directly relate to their argument.

[Greentruth]

I totally agree Hulda. I have honestly tried to understand others standpoint in a loving way. It’s obvious we all process words different and can assume the worst at times. I grew up and work in an environment where thin skin doesn’t last long.

19, thank you for the thoughts. I have felt I have tried to address what I see as attacks of why the person would verbalize a hurtful statement, and not so much the statement, mainly because the statement doesn’t line up with the facts and truths I know. I assume comments to be purposely hurtful when what I know as fact and truth would define otherwise. I still believe there is an agenda by some to smear,or even hurt, even if it is not a hominem. I guess this is what I have been trying to communicate.

[OneOfMany]

I have felt I have tried to address what I see as attacks of why the person would verbalize a hurtful statement, and not so much the statement, mainly because the statement doesn’t line up with the facts and truths I know. I assume comments to be purposely hurtful when what I know as fact and truth would define otherwise. I still believe there is an agenda by some to smear,or even hurt, even if it is not a hominem. I guess this is what I have been trying to communicate.

Greentruth. I have no intention of smearing or hurting anyone. I do not believe anyone who has been posting here (outside of Mark Darling supporters) intends to smear or hurt someone.

Many of us have suffered injustice at the hands of Mark Darling, Brent Knox and Mark Bowen. We have suffered injustice by others because the culture of many GCM churches lead people to say and do things that are cruel. These are facts.

It is also a fact that multiple women have come forward to claim sexual abuse. Personally I believe them because while at my GCM church personal boundaries along sexual themes were unhealthy. There is a climate at Evergreen of normalizing the intrusion of personal sexual experiences as something to share on the stage during teachings, during sermons and between members either in small groups or during counseling. This is a fact.

Sharing facts is not smearing or trying to hurt someone. IN fact after trying to work with the pastors to effect change so these indiscretions would not happen in the future and failing to have them make healthy changes, the only option left is to warn others so that they too are not hurt. By sharing what Mark Darling, Brent Knox, Mark Bowen, other pastors and Jeromy Darling do within the church innocent people can be warned and not harmed. Our sharing is an act of love, not an attempt to do harm.

Maybe when you read what we post you could look at it as an act of love, not of hatred and see what we are saying in a new light.

As for your saying you know the facts and the truth - well you don't. You were not at my side when I was mistreated. You do not know what others have suffered because you were not there. I encourage you to take time to consider that what people are sharing is what they experienced, that it is the truth. We are sharing truth. I would hope that you could come to recognize that.

I waited a long time to post because it was not easy to share what I went through even if I remained anonymous. This is not easy. But it is necessary. When good people do nothing, when they stay silent and allow leaders to sin against those they lead, then evil deeds flourish. I came to a place in which God told me to speak out. It was time for me to stand for righteousness and truth.

I hope you can look at what is said on this board and assume the best, not the worst of those sharing.

[Greentruth]

One? Your still on my list.

[Greentruth]

One? Did you think I was addressing you? I wasn’t again. Guilty conscience?

[OneOfMany]

One? Did you think I was addressing you? I wasn’t again. Guilty conscience?

Again an Ad Hominem Attack. Why? Why do you do that?

[Greentruth]

One? Did you think I was addressing you? I wasn’t again. Guilty conscience?

Again an Ad Hominem Attack. Why? Why do you do that?

Just asked a question! I think I could have said Ad  Hominem attack to you in your last statement claiming I don’t know truth or facts, but whatever. Mellow, read your Bible for awhile, I am😊

[Isthisreal?]

Wow! Must be running out of topics to complain about! Arguing about how to argue?! What!? I know, I know....Ad Hominem! Fallacy! LOL! Thought police please save me from myself....

[Linda]

Arguing about how to argue?!

Classic equivocation fallacy.

I see what you did here. You used 2 different meanings of the word "argue". That's equivocation. "The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument."

Your first use of the word "arguing" was with the definition "to contend or disagree in words".

The second time you used argue in the sense of giving reasons/evidence of/to persuade.

BTW, it's not "thought police", understanding fallacies is a good thing because it helps people communicate clearly and logically.

[araignee19]

Oh, how sad 

Do some people actually prefer to use faulty logic and poor reasoning to defend their ideas? I for one want my logic to be solid, because that is the truthful way to defend an idea. Otherwise you are essentially defending your ideas with a falsehood. I’d even argue that it is biblical to use sound reasoning and logic. Oh well. Can’t control what others do or believe...

[Greentruth]

I believe Paul spoke of this, to speak in whatever language, all things to all, so the Truth can be understood by all. Simple language as Bible translators are involved all over the world, plus don’t Lord over those with lesser understandings. Sharing the truth lovingly so all understand.

[Greentruth]

I know, I probably broke another argument rule, lol

[Linda]

Moving this back to fallacies and what araginee19 started as a "lighthearted" way to help us all be more logical and less irrational, here is one of my favorite fallacy videos.

https://youtu.be/--szrOHtR6U

[araignee19]

Exactly. Share the truth. Logical fallicies are false. Not truth. Christians have a responsobilty to study and understand the Truth and have a true reason for our faith.  “Lesser understanding” is a cop out. Act 17:11. 

Sharing the Bible and saying it is true for false reasons is not loving or godly. It hurts people.

And I believe you have miserably taken that verse out of context and butchered the meaning. Paul did not say “share falsehoods if it gets someone to believe truth.” Shame on you for trying to distract from the topic of this thread by butchering scripture.

[OneOfMany]

Moving this back to fallacies and what araginee19 started as a "lighthearted" way to help us all be more logical and less irrational, here is one of my favorite fallacy videos.

https://youtu.be/--szrOHtR6U

That was enjoyable. TY!

Bowl of soup here is an APE! ...uh wait...with the spoon in the bowl is seems to have a tail...so is it a Monkey? LOL

[Greentruth]

Saying this as gently as possible, and from me and me alone. To get a bur under your saddle over this topic is telling to me, and exactly why I question SOME of the accusations on this forum. We all have a right to our own opinion, but to hold our opinion over others does not create peace. You want to hold it over me because I’m not schooled or trained in your manner of discussion, as I have seen several on the forum struggle with as well. Your thread has been complicating for most on this thread, go back and read. I have absorbed some helpful aspects of your thread, but doubt I will implement it into my thought process. Plain and simple, it is obvious we all have tolerance for what we are subjected to. You share from your tolerance level, and myself and others share from theirs. What bothers you may not bother me, and vice versa. We all mess up, and we all get hurt in life, and how we deal with it leaves us with the consequences.

[OneOfMany]

Saying this as gently as possible, and from me and me alone. To get a bur under your saddle over this topic is telling to me, and exactly why I question SOME of the accusations on this forum. We all have a right to our own opinion, but to hold our opinion over others does not create peace. You want to hold it over me because I’m not schooled or trained in your manner of discussion, as I have seen several on the forum struggle with as well. Your thread has been complicating for most on this thread, go back and read. I have absorbed some helpful aspects of your thread, but doubt I will implement it into my thought process. Plain and simple, it is obvious we all have tolerance for what we are subjected to. You share from your tolerance level, and myself and others share from theirs. What bothers you may not bother me, and vice versa. We all mess up, and we all get hurt in life, and how we deal with it leaves us with the consequences.

GreenTruth I too am struggling to learn to recognize and handle Fallacies. It takes time to learn to recognize fallacies and then how to respond to them, as well as to avoid their use in our own language. I hope you will give yourself time to study them, learn to recognize them, and improve your communication skills. I am doing that. I am sure you can do it too. We will make mistakes on this journey but that is part of the learning process.