ABSTENTION RAW DEBATE PART I

In order to test the strength of my arguments on abstention, I have decided to throw them into the fire, so to speak, to be evaluated by those who would like nothing more than to destroy them completely. That being the case, it is my hope that the weaknesses will brought to light, so that I may know exactly where I need to apply “patches” and reinforcing. This process will only refine my arguments and make them all the stronger in the end, even if they take a beating initially. The following are my raw responses during the course of the debate.

OBERON 1

1.1 Main Opposing Argument to be addressed in this Section:

To use from is not to abstain from

JWs use from blood

JWs do not abstain from blood

The problem that I see with this argument is not so much what it does have as much as it is what it doesn’t have. We see this more clearly when we reduce it all to variables:

To use from...is not to abstain from...

JWs use from x

JWs do not abstain from x

Notice those little ellipses in the first line? Those point to where the variables should be, but are in reality conspicuously absent from.

If we want to make the conclusion actually follow from the premises, then we have to add those variables, thus obtaining

To use from x is not to abstain from x

JWs use from x

JWs do not abstain from x

Now what is wrong with this argument? What is wrong is that there is a big difference between

To use [from] x is not to abstain from x

And

To use x is not to abstain from x

The first option introduces the element of indirect usage with the word “from,” and thus allows for another variable

To use y from x is not to abstain from x

JWs use y from x

JWs do not abstain from x

This is the argument that opposers (Including Mr. Marvin Shilmer) are actually using. It must have two varibles instead of just the one, because they are equating usage of minor fractions [=y] to usage of blood [=x], and they have not yet proved that all y = x. As an example

To use amines [=y] from blood [=x] is not to abstain from blood [=x]

JWs use amines [=y] from blood [=x]

JWs do not abstain from blood [=x]

Now then, what exactly is the problem with this type of argument? As I hinted at earlier, the problem lies in the indirectness of the word “from.” See if the following substitution makes any sense.

Command from God: abstain from ocean water.

To use fish [=y] from ocean water [=x] is not to abstain from ocean water [=x]

McDonalds customers use fish [=y] from ocean water [=x]

McDonalds customers do not abstain from ocean water [=x]

Now can we rationally agree with the conclusion that a Mcdonald’s customer who eats a fish sandwich has violated the command to abstain from ocean water, even though they likely never even saw, tasted, or touched the ocean water the fish came from? The first premise is absurd, and it racks the mind. But more importantly, the premise in the base argument is vague and debatable, which is not a good thing for deduction. In terms of sheer eloquence and simplicity, the argument without the word “from”(and slightly rearranged) is the clear winner.

To abstain from x is to not use x

JWs do not use x

JWs abstain from x

To abstain from blood [=x] is to not use blood [=x]
JWs do not use blood [=x]

JWs abstain from blood [=x]

But if opposers want to prove their duel variable argument, then they must follow the form

To use y is not to abstain from x

all y = x

JWs use y

JWs do not abstain from x

So until the opposers prove that whatever minor fraction they are currently harping about [=y] is actually blood [=x], their arguments are UNSOUND.

OBERON 4

Thank you for not addressing a single thing that I said [J]--it only reassures me that I am correct on what I actually did discuss.

But as far as all the stuff you go on about goes,

If one could guarantee that only a minor fraction that is not considered to be blood would be used, while the whole blood and primary components are "given back to God," then I would have no problem with giving just the fractions (which are not considered to be blood). It would conform to the conclusions reached in my above argument.

However, most donations do not have that guarantee about them. You donate whole blood and the medical staff do whatever they want with it. That is what we take issue with.

Tears of Oberon

OBERON 6

[J] wrote:

Like I said,---- that Baptist dude is going to have to Die bottomline

Tears of Oberon replied:

Those must be a pretty terrible hospital then, not even having access to blood if the Baptist dude wants it...

I mean honestly, the JWs make up like, less than 1% of the US population and the Baptist has to rely on that kind of percentage to survive? Where did the other 99% go hmm?

OBERON 15

AF wrote:

The fallacy of your argument, Tears of Oberon, lies in your confusion about sets (since you want to frame this argument in terms of mathematical set theory, you're stuck with the logic of set theory).

Tears of Oberon replied:

I never alluded to nor hinted that I was using mathematical set theory. My notation is based on common sense and understandability (something you don’t seem to care much for). I am bound by nothing but those principles.

AF wrote:

A mathematical set is simply a collection of objects…[insert technical babble here]…The set of members common between sets A and C is called the intersection of A and C.”

Shilmer has been talking about the set "blood", which contains many members including red cells, plasma, and all the fractions that can be derived from blood. This is the set that you've assigned as "x"

Tears of Oberon replied:

Yes, I agree that this is what Shilmer intended to do. He attempts to include within his subset every particle every associated with any particular unit of blood down to the atomic level, which is absurd and ridiculous.

AF wrote:

The phrase "use from blood" means "use a subset of blood" and "use a subset of x".

Tears of Oberon replied:

That is exactly what my argument states, and nothing more.

"To use y from x is not to abstain from x"

Indicates that y originates from group x by virtue of the word "from." Go read.

AF wrote:

The phrase "use from blood" means "use a subset of blood" and "use a subset of x". The phrase "abstain from blood" means "abstain from using a subset of blood or x". It is obvious from a coherent use of the English language that to use a subset of x is to not abstain from using that subset of x.

Tears of Oberon replied:

It means no such thing—you just inserted that untrue phrase into the middle of a mess of scholarly gobbledygook with the hopes that the lay reader will simply accept on the premise that “it looks fancy, therefore it must be right.”

AF wrote:

Therefore, your claim that "there is a big difference between: To use [from] x is not to abstain from x and To use x is not to abstain from x" is completely artificial and just plain wrong.

And yet, through all of your ‘scholarly’ babbling you just admitted that there is indeed a big difference between the two.

Tears of Oberon replied:

“To use x” doesn’t have the unnecessary complexity of the subsets, while “to use y from x” is referring to a derivative of x, but not the whole group x itself.

AF wrote:

In terms of set theory, you've introduced a red herring: a set y, some of whose members are of set x and some that are not.

Tears of Oberon replied:

I implied no such thing. You made that one up yourself [strawman].

AF wrote:

This contradicts the basic notion of "use from", which by definition means "use members from a set".

Tears of Oberon wrote:

Which is the same as “use y from x,” i.e., y comes from group x. What exactly are you trying to refute again?

OBERON 16

AF wrote:

In other words, you've confused the notion of sets C and A as I described above. Your set y is my set C, which contains some members of set x and other members not of x. Which members of y and C are of set x? All those members that are derived from blood. Which members of y and C are not of set x? All those member that are not derived from blood.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Letting y have some members not of sect x was never important to my argument. All of my y’s can come from the x’s for all I care. What has not been established, and what I was discussing, is that a derivative has, as an entity, the same identity as the entity made up of the group as a whole, i.e., y = x.

AF wrote:

Your basic mistake is in claiming that substances that have different origins have the same origin, such as…[blah blah blah saving space]…guanine derived FROM blood is different in origin from guanine derived from basic chemicals in a lab.

Tears of Oberon replied:

You miss the point of the argument. My argument operates from the basic premise that:

“Every compound structure in the Universe is subject to losing enough of its parts so that, in the event, it has lost its identity as the distinguishable entity it was prior to its decomposition.”

When blood is decomposed enough to break it down into something as miniscule as a single amine, does the amine still carry the identity of “blood”? Or if that blood derived amine were to just happen to give up some of its electrons to surrounding non-blood atoms, and those random atoms were subsequently put to some use by a JW, has the JW failed to abstain from blood? Does the “bloodness” transfer on an atomic level? This is the absurdity of yours and Marvin’s argument. That is also why my final JW argument

To abstain from blood [=x] is to not use blood [=x]
JWs do not use blood [=x]

JWs abstain from blood [=x]

Wins in terms of Occam’s Razor and elegance.

AF wrote:

Your example of the set y lumps guanine derived FROM blood with guanine derived by other means. Therefore, your set y is not a subset of x, and your argument fails. It fails because, in terms of my sets A and C, you've confused the intersection of A and C with a subset B of A.

Tears of Oberon replied:

You have indeed invalidated something, but that something has nothing to do with my argument whatsoever.

The command is to abstain from the entity identified as “blood.” If an electron is not blood, even if that electron is derived from blood, then the command to abstain from blood has not been violated. y =/= x

OBERON 17

T wrote:

I recognize that you can take components of blood and fractionize them to the point they no longer resemble blood. I also recognize that Watchtower apologists have failed to prove that components of blood are actually blood. Watchtower literature has often made the statement that JW's don't take whole blood or the four primary components of blood but I don't recall Watchtower literature ever saying that the four primary components are each individually blood.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Alright then, let's play the game, starting with my premise:

“Every compound structure in the Universe is subject to losing enough of its parts so that, in the event, it has lost its identity as the distinguishable entity it was prior to its decomposition.”

And adding the premise:

"An electron is not blood."

And starting with the command:

"Do not use blood"

Now then, if you agree that an electron is not blood, but that blood contains electrons, then you must also agree that at some point between the component "electron" and the entity "blood," blood must lose its identity as blood. You tell me where you draw the line at T, and I will give you my opinion in return.

Tears of Oberon

OBERON 31

T wrote:

I'm not arguing that blood fractions are blood.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Neither am I. If certain blood fractions are not blood (not being all inclusive, as it should be a case by case thing), then how can one violate the command the abstain from blood by using what is considered not blood? Our position is that simple.

T wrote:

I'm not arguing that JW's that take blood fractions are guilty of not abstaining from blood.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Yes, I know. But the point of the arguments from the first posts was that if you did wish to establish that taking blood fractions is not abstaining from blood, then you would need to establish that whatever fraction you have in mind carries the identity of “blood,” i.e., has “bloodness” about it.

To use y [particular fraction] is not to abstain from x [blood]

JWs use y

JWs do not abstain from x

Is only sound if all y = x

That is our position in a nutshell.

T wrote:

As I explained in post #14 my beef is with JW's that assert that "abstain from...blood" means keeping away from blood in a universal, all encompassing sense.

Tears of Oberon replied:

But you do not actually define what “universal, all encompassing sense” means. Does that mean do not touch blood? Do not look at it? Do not smell it? Do not think about it? What are the limits in your mind, and can you prove that the Society holds to those same limits?

T wrote:

I think that taking products obtained from the collecting, storing, and fractionizing of donor blood is contrary to abstaining from blood in a universal, all encompassing sense.

Besides the phrase not being defined yet, and besides you stating that you are not arguing that minor fractions are blood, then in what sense is using products considered to not be blood (even if coming originally from blood) a violation of the command to abstain?

I posed the question in the first post: Do McDonalds customers fail to abstain from seawater just because they eat the fish sandwiches?

T wrote:

You have indicated on your website that you don't think that "abstain from...blood" means keeping away from blood in a universal, all encompassing sense, therefore, I've got no dispute with you on this point. Tell me what you do claim "abstain from...blood" means and we can proceed from there.

My opinions coincide with the articles outlined on the OnlyTrueGod site—the command to “abstain from blood” applies only to entities known as blood and those components which have not decomposed enough to lose their identity as blood.

I go by the premise: “Every compound structure in the Universe is subject to losing enough of its parts so that, in the event, it has lost its identity as the distinguishable entity it was prior to its decomposition.” One of these base levels for most matter is the electron, as I pointed out. An electron (even from blood) does not have blood-ness about it, just as an electron derived from an orange does not have “orange-ness” about it.

But as another user posted in a parallel example, even though an orange seed or orange rind or orange juice does not make up a whole orange, these are still primary components of oranges and would rationally be thought to still have “orange-ness” about them. Similarly, the four major formed elements of blood (white cells, red cells, platelets and plasma) are a rationable and reasonable place to draw the line (because it must be drawn somewhere, just as the other poster drew the line with the oranges). Anything below that line is simply left to conscience.

Tears of Oberon

OBERON 57

Marvin wrote:

And what of cryosupernatant fractioned from plasma?

Tears of Oberon replied:

What about cryosupernatant? You have not provided us with any official publications that make the statement or similar statement:“Cryosupernatant is acceptable.” That is your burden of proof, not ours.

Marvin wrote:

Do you HONESTLY expect anyone to believe that Witnesses can use crysupernatant and cryoprecipitate and be said to abstain from plasma?
And your answer is:_________

Tears of Oberon replied:

One again, that is your burden of proof, not ours. Your complete argument is:

1. Some Witnesses in good standing [plural] openly use cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant simultaneously with no negative repercussions from their congregation.

2. Therefore, said Witnesses do not abstain from blood.

You need to evidence your claim Mr. Shilmer. Show us two or more documented cases where a Witness in good standing with their congregation has openly used both cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant simultaneously and not had negative repercussions from their congregation.

Until you manage that, then your claim is just fantasy.

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberson, You are just plain stupid. Good grief!!!!

Tears of “Oberson” (lol) replied:

Childish name calling does not make your arguments any more credible Mr. Shilmer.

Marvin wrote:

Here is a fact: There is NOTHING in plasma that is not ALSO in cryoprecipitate.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Facts typically require some support, of which you offer none. Apparently, anything that comes out of your mouth must automatically be assumed true and sound merely on the basis that you are Marvin Shilmer and we are not.

Here is a fact: cryoprecipitate =/= plasma. Cryoprecipitate is nothing but a combination of a few of the many coagulation factors that are carried by plasma. Those factors are in reality more related to the platelets than the plasma itself.

Cryoprecipitate (CRYO)

Description

Cryoprecipitate is prepared from plasma and contains fibrinogen, von Willebrand factor, factor VIII, factor XIII and fibronectin.

Plasma

The plasma is the river in which the blood cells travel. It carries not only the blood cells but also nutrients (sugars, amino acids, fats, salts, minerals, etc.), waste products (CO2, lactic acid, urea, etc.), antibodies, clotting proteins (called clotting factors), chemical messengers such as hormones, and proteins that help maintain the body's fluid balance.

Composition of Blood Plasma (In Percents):

Water 92

Proteins 6–8

Salts 0.8

Lipids 0.6

Glucose (blood sugar) 0.1

References

http://www.psbc.org/therapy/cryo.htm

http://www.psbc.org/hematology/02_plasma.htm

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/B/Blood.html#plasma

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Clotting.html

Marvin wrote:

Here is another fact: There is NOTHING In plasma that is not also in cryosupernatant.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Again, you need to actually prove your claims instead of expecting us to just accept them at face value. I personally don’t feel like doing your work for you however, because the burden of proof is yours. Also please remember, that a claim supported by no evidence requires no counter-evidence to dismiss. Therefore, your claim as it stands is rejected.

Marvin wrote:

It takes a fool to talk about something you don't know about, and pretend you know what you are talking about.

And the man who is showed up by the fool is an even bigger fool himself.

Tears of Oberon

OBERON 58

Marvin wrote:

I want to thank Tears of Oberon for his work.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Why thank you.

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon writes at his blog:

Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:

“To use y from x is not to abstain from x

“JWs use y from x

“JWs do not abstain from x

“This is the argument that opposers (Including Mr. Shilmer) are actually using.”

What Tears of Oberson writes above is a strawman.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Are you saying that the following is NOT your argument? Cus it sure sounds exactly like what you have been going on about to me.

“To use cryoprecipitate [=y] from blood [=x] is not to abstain from blood [=x]

JWs use cryoprecipitate [=y] from blood [=x]

JWs do not abstain from blood [=x]

Marvin wrote:

Watchtower doctrine leaves Witnesses to accept ALL fractions derived from ANY primary component of blood.[1]

ALL of ANY is EVERYTHING.

Tears of Oberon replied:

The “all of anything” fallacy is not the same argument that I addressed in my first post. When I said that it was your argument, I didn’t mean that it was your ONLY argument. You have used both.

Additionally, we have exposed this obvious lie many times before. What you reference does not mean that the Witness wants EVERY POSSIBLE FRACTION SIMULTANEOUSLY, which if what you want it to mean. That would simply be idiotic. It is in reality equivalent to saying that the Witness is willing to accept ANY TYPE of minor fraction.

Marvin wrote:

Here is something more akin to the actual argument:

To use ALL from x is not to abstain from x

JWs use ALL from x

JWs do not abstain from x

Tears of Oberon replied:

Once again, you fail miserably at actually supporting your premises. Find me a documented case of a Witness in good standing openly accepting EVERYTHING from blood at once with no negative repercussions from their congregation. If you cannot do that, then your statement is untrue and is simply fantasy.

Marvin wrote:

Watchtower says Witnesses abstain from plasma.

But Witnesses use cryoprecipitate FROM plasma and Witnesses use cryosupernatant FROM plasma.

Those two fractions of plasma are the sum total of plasma. Under Watchtower doctrine Witnesses can and do accept these.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Again, you have not shown any instances whatsoever where a Witness has accepted both cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant simultaneously. You have not shown where Watchtower even mentions or discusses cryosupernatant. You have not shown anything! Get with the program Mr. Shilmer!

Marvin wrote:

Scriptural Perspective:

“For the body, indeed, is not one member, but many.”—(1 Corinthians 12:14, NWT)
For the blood, indeed, is not one member, but many.

No one member of blood is blood just as no one member of the body is the body.

Simple as pie, not to mention scriptural.

Marvin Shilmer

Tears of Oberon replied:

Again, a ridiculous argument. I receive the command: Do not eat your friends body. So you are saying that I would be perfectly justified in chopping off my friends arm and eating it?

T wrote:

I don't claim that what you say above counts as a violation of what the command to "abstain from...blood" actually means. I only contend that using from the donated and stored blood supply is not consistent with what a lot of JW's think "abstain from...blood" means, namely, "keep away from blood" or "have nothing to do with blood".

Tears of Oberon replied:

“With what a lot of JWs think”? You are entering into very uncertain and fuzzy ground when you start assuming what people think. Try to stay a little more concrete, i.e., use express written, official statements.

Tears of Oberon

OBERON 56 (backtracking a bit)

Marvin wrote:

It surely is amusing to read this discussion and wonder at the thinking processes involved.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Ditto

Marvin wrote:

From [post 1] we have:

Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:

Command from God: abstain from ocean water.

To use fish [=y] from ocean water [=x] is not to abstain from ocean water [=x]

McDonalds customers use fish [=y] from ocean water [=x]

McDonalds customers do not abstain from ocean water [=x]

Because the argument above assumes Y = X is why I have not asserted that argument.

I have asserted that to USE FROM X is contrary to ABSTAIN FROM X.

Tears of Oberon claws around the above premise as though something else is being said when it is not. Why would someone serious about a particular subject skirt the issue?

Tears of Oberon replied:

You didn’t seem to get the point, Mr. Shilmer. I did not assume that Y = X—I stated that for the argument to be true, then Y must = X, and that YOU need to prove it since you are the one using the argument in the first place.

The phrase “Use from X” naturally implies the question: use what? For the “what,” I have assigned the variable “Y,” thereby creating for you

“To use Y from X is contrary to ABSTAIN FROM X”

where Y might be the same as X, or it might be something contained within X.

That is also why, I repeatedly stated that the “from” adds unnecessary levels of complexity to the argument. The more elegant form would be:

To use X is contrary to ABSTAIN FROM X.

Marvin wrote:

Here is something for interested readers to ponder:

Tears of Oberon replied:

Oh Lord, here we go…

Marvin wrote:

Hypothetically let’s say:

God says “abstain from ocean water.”

Tears of Oberon replied:

Deceptive term, and I’ll explain why later.

Marvin wrote:

Substance Water:

Because not all water is from ocean water then to consume water is not necessarily contrary to abstaining from ocean water. A person may get their water from an inland spring or river, by collecting gaseous water from our atmosphere, or they might make their own water by merging hydrogen with oxygen. Consuming water from non-ocean water sources would not require using from ocean water. But consuming water extracted FROM ocean water would require that we USE ocean water when we are told to abstain FROM ocean water.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Agree with the conclusion as is constrained by the premises given. However, I have an interesting question in response:

Assuming that Mr. Shilmer is not ignorant of the water cycle, then is not a significant portion of inland water actually “Ocean” water that has simply been evaporated form the ocean and then precipitated onto land? Does not that simple fact make his entire argument ridiculous? I mean honestly, that would mean that it would be impossible for any human to not use FROM ocean water—they would literally have to die of dehydration.

Marvin wrote:

Substance Salt:

Because not all salt is from ocean water then to consume salt is not necessarily contrary to abstaining from ocean water. A person may get their salt from an inland mine that is a non-ocean water source, or they might make their own salt by synthesizing it from sodium carbonate that is from a non-ocean water source. But consuming salt extracted FROM ocean water would require that we USE ocean water when we are told to abstain FROM ocean water.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Sorry, but using the salt from ocean water is not a violation of the command, because the restriction is only on “ocean water,” and not “ocean salt.” To explain further: in the first part of this ‘interesting’ example, you use the word “ocean” solely in the sense of defining the LOCATION from which the “water” comes. You do not, however, use the word “ocean” in the sense of defining the specific TYPE of water—if you had wanted to specifically address water TYPE, then you should have used “salt water” instead of “ocean water.” This is made more obvious when we consider that we can create two glasses of the exact same chemical composition (water with a specific percentage of salt), and yet have one be acceptable and one forbidden due only to the location from which one of the liquids originated from.

Marvin wrote:

Until someone can demonstrate how to simultaneously abstain from and use from the SAME stuff, then it remains the case that to USE FROM X is NOT TO ABSTAIN FROM X.

Tears if Oberon replied:

As I’ve already stated, and as you’ve repeated ignored.

Whales are taken FROM ocean water/salt water.

The whale meat is shipped inland to a rural community in Oklahoma, where it is thoroughly cooked.

The meat is served to our dear Tears of Oberon, because he does oh so love whale meat.

Has Tears of Oberon failed to abstain from ocean water, when he has never even seen the ocean before in his life? According to Mr. Shilmer he has.

But has Tears of Oberon actually used ocean water? No! He used WHALE [=y], not OCEAN WATER [=x].

The difference is because the phrase“use from” is vague, and can be indirect ad infinitum.

Example 2:

Tears of Oberon plants a potato on his farm in the middle of Texas. Shortly thereafter, a hurricane blows through and causes heavy rain over Tears of Oberon’s potato seed. After the potato is fully grown, Tears of Oberon digs it up, cooks it and enjoys it with a nice big Texas steak. But wait!

The potato seed used FROM the ocean water.

Tears of Oberon used FROM the full grown potato.

Therefore, Tears of Oberon failed to abstain FROM ocean water simply by eating a baked potato!

Brilliant!

Example 3 (even more absurd)

Millions of years ago, a plant grew in the ocean water that formerly covered the majority of Oklahoma.

A swimming DINOSAUR came by and ate the plant.

Shortly thereafter, an underwater landslide covered the dinosaur and killed it.

Millions of years later, the dinosaur has been changed into oil.

That oil is extracted from the ground by an oil company, and is used to make gasoline.

That gasoline, in turn, is purchases by Tears of Oberon and is put into his car’s gasoline tank.

The plant used FROM the ocean water.

The dinosaur used FROM the plant.

The land used FROM the dinosaur in creating oil.

The oil company used FROM the oil to create the gasoline.

Tears of Oberon used FROM the gasoline to power his car.

Therefore, Tears of Oberon has ultimately used FROM ocean water, and has thus failed to ABSTAIN FROM ocean water.

But has Tears of Oberon actually USED ocean water? Of course not! This is the absurdity of Mr. Shilmer’s arguments.

Marvin wrote:

Whether Y (i.e., salt, etc) IS “ocean water” is a different question to whether taking and using Y (i.e. salt, etc.) FROM X (ocean water) is abstaining FROM X (ocean water).

Tears of Oberon replied:

If Y is not X, then the command “Abstain from X” has not been violated.

What you violate in your example is NOT “Abstain from X,” what you violate is:

“Abstain from using Y from X”

Where Y can either be a subcomponent of X or X itself.

They are different prohibitions Mr. Shilmer. What you use is a STRAWMAN.

Marvin wrote:

I encourage readers to gorge their curiosity of this subject be reading apologias presented by Tears of Oberon, Thirdwitness and other Watchtower worshippers. Aside from entertainment value, for sure it is also educational!

Tears of Oberon replied:

We get much entertainment from exposing your deceptions Mr. Shilmer. You also give us quite a bit of education, because you teach us exactly how to respond to all similar arguments, and thus inadvertently strengthen us, your enemies. Just like now—if you had not forced me to sit down and think about your argument for several hours straight, then I might not have learned how to expose it for what it really is. If I had not sat down and started reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as preparation for response to your challenges, then I might not have ever known anything about formal logic. Thank you Mr. Shilmer for continually strengthening me, your enemy.

OBERON 61

Marvin wrote:

Ocean Water and Tears of Oberon

Tears of Oberon makes analogous usage of “ocean water” in his presentation that addresses objections raised of Watchtower’s blood doctrine.

It occurs to me how similar ocean water is to the straw colored component of blood known as plasma.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Maybe that is why Tears of Oberon used it…

Marvin wrote:

Watchtower says Witnesses abstain from plasma. Yet Witnesses can accept fractions extracted from plasma. Tears of Oberon thinks it honest to then say Witnesses abstain from plasma because fractions of plasma are not plasma. Let’s take a look at this from the perspective of abstaining from ocean water.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Oh Lord, here we go again…

Marvin wrote:

Regarding ocean water:

We can easily fractionate ocean water into two distinguishable substances of solutes and deionized water.

Solutes FROM ocean water are not ocean water.

Deionized water FROM ocean water is not ocean water.

Those two statements are true because ocean water is a composition of both the above and not just one of the above by itself.

Tears of Oberon replied:

I agree in opinion, because it seems reasonable to Tears of Oberon that deionized water from ocean water has decomposed enough to lose its identity as the entity as “ocean/salt water.” However, not all entities lose their identity as that particular entity by just any decomposition—it depends on the degree of decomposition, the entity itself and reasonableness in drawing the line on our part.

For instance: how many parts do you have to take away from the entity known as “car” before it loses its identity as “car”? It is reasonable to think that one would have to take away quite a few parts (we’ve all seen junk lots with stripped out, broken vehicles all over the place and thought, “wow, lots of CARS there.) For the ocean water, on the other hand, all that is required is one major part: the salt.

Marvin wrote:

Regarding plasma:

We can easily fractionate plasma into two distinguishable substances of precipitate and supernatant.

Precipitate FROM plasma is not plasma. (Under Watchtower doctrine).

Tears of Oberon replied:

Wrong. Watchtower makes no determination one way or the other what precipitate is. They leave it up to the individual Witnesses to decide whether it IS or IS NOT plasma.

Marvin wrote:

Supernatant FROM plasma is not plasma. (Under Watchtower doctrine).

Tears of Oberon replied:

Wrong. Watchtower does not ever mention “supernatant.” So how can something that is never mentioned officially not be something else under “Watchtower doctrine”? You still need to PROVE your statements Mr. Shilmer!

Marvin wrote:

Those two statements are true because plasma is a composition of both the above and not just one of the above by itself.(Under Watchtower doctrine)

Tears of Oberon replied:

Again, invalid because Watchtower does not mention supernatant. However, the composition statement is true under other, non-Watchtower sources.

Marvin wrote:

A person who extracts deionized water from ocean water for personal consumption can say they have not consumed ocean water, but they cannot say they have abstained from ocean water.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Tears of Oberon can also eat a baked potato in Texas and still fail to abstain from ocean water, according to Mr. Shilmer’s ridiculous logic…

Marvin wrote:

Certainly a community that extracts deionized water and solutes from ocean water and then consumes both cannot honestly say it has abstained from ocean water.

Tears of Oberon replied:

In the unrestricted use of the word abstain, I would say that the community that does the extracting violates the command to “abstain from ocean water” by virtue of USING the water in the process of deionization, and not by simply drinking the non-ocean water by-product. However, if that community were to sell the non-ocean water by-product to an unrelated outsider, then that unrelated outsider has done nothing to violate the command to “abstain from ocean water,” because he is not using nor has he used ocean water. You said it yourself: “Deionized water FROM ocean water is not ocean water.” That is, of course, according to my prohibition. If you recall, I discussed earlier how you are not using the prohibition form: “Abstain from X.” You are using the form, “Abstain from using Y from X,” where Y is either a subcomponent of X or X itself. But if under YOUR prohibition, then yes the unrelated outsider would be guilty of not abstaining from ocean water even in using non-ocean water.

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon wants readers to think Witnesses abstain from plasma because under Watchtower doctrine Witnesses do not accept transfusion of plasma.

Tears or Oberon replied:

Correct. Under the prohibition, “Do not use X [=plasma],” the witnesses do indeed not use x [=plasma].

Marvin wrote:

Yet under Watchtower doctrine Witnesses accept transfusion of precipitate and supernatant fractionated from plasma.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Mr. Shilmer has NOT YET PROVIDED A SHRED OF EVIDENCE proving that Watchtower allows supernatant.

Marvin wrote:

These two products fractioned from plasma are the sum total of the original plasma, as deionized water and solutes from ocean water are the sum total of ocean water.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Agree.

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon would have readers believe that is it possible to fractionated ocean water into deionized water and solutes, then consume both, and then honestly look everyone in the face as say “I have abstained from ocean water.”

Tears of Oberon replied:

Tears of Oberon has never made such a claim. Mr. Shilmer is once again making stuff up out of thin air (he has a habit of this). Marvin Shilmer, show me where Tears of Oberon makes the explicit statement: “One can consume both the deionized water and salt simultaneously and still claim to have abstained from ocean water.” I’ll ever give you a hint: You can’t find it, because Tears hasn’t ever thought that.

Marvin wrote:

I am at a loss why Tears of Oberon would even attempt to assert such a thing as true, and to do so in apparent earnest.

Tears of Oberon replied:

I am at a loss at how Mr. Shilmer can earnestly sit there and assign positions and statements to Tears of Oberon that he has never once made.

Marvin wrote:

I believe only a blind person could hold such a view, and then only if they were led to that belief by another person that is either blind or dishonest.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Even a blind person could figure out that Tears of Oberon never made such statements. By process of elimination then, Mr. Shilmer must be dishonest.

Tears of Oberon.

OBERON 63

Marvin wrote:

[quoting Tears]:

“What about cryosupernatant? You have not provided us with any official publications that make the statement or similar statement: “Cryosupernatant is acceptable.” That is your burden of proof, not ours.”

I apologize. It was my impression you wanted to substantively address issues of Watchtower's blood doctrine. Apparently you are not interested in doing that.

Tears of Oberon replied:

How on earth is asking you to evidence YOUR OWN claims (which you did NOT do) indicative that I do not want to address the issue? It is your burden of proof, not mine.

Marvin wrote:

I am not asking you or anyone else to accept my word that Watchtower's blood doctrine leaves it up to Witnesses to accept cryosupernatant from plasma JUST AS it leaves it up to Witnesses to accept cryoprecipitate from plasma.

Because I AM INTERESTED in substantive discussion of Watchtower's blood doctrine

Tears of Oberon replied:

You are interested in proving yourself right and Watchtower wrong at all costs, nothing more.

Marvin wrote:

then I ASKED Watchtower representatives

Tears of Oberon replied:

A vague term…could have been nothing but a local elder for all we know…he did try to pull a similar stunt with the whole “hierarchy” quote debacle…

Marvin wrote:

directly whether Witnesses could accept cryosupernatant under the same terms as Witnesses can and do accept cryoprecipitate. Though Watchtower publications support a conclusion that they can, I went the extra-mile to confirm this directly. Why? BECAUSE I am interested in SUBSTANTIVE discussion of the subject.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Oh, so you got that in WRITING specifically from World Headquarters then? Great! Let’s see an official scan Mr. Shilmer, with your exact initial question included (because your credibility is already shot to pieces and your motives are not the purest).

Marvin wrote:

Please DO NOT pretend YOU are substantively addressing Watchtower’s blood doctrine UNTIL such time that you make it YOUR BUSINESS to KNOW Watchtower’s blood doctrine,

Tears of Oberon replied:

I’ve been teaching you proper doctrine on blood for how many posts now? I’ve completely lost count…

Marvin wrote:

and in particular in this instance whether Witnesses CAN or CANNOT accept cryosupernatant as they can accept cryoprecipitate.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Now why the heck should I be expected to know such a ridiculous and obscure point as that in advance? That is like me expecting you to know every minute argument and point that I am ever going to come up with in advance. We grow as we go Mr. Shilmer—isn’t that one of the purposes of this debate?

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon wrote:

Here is a fact: cryoprecipitate =/= plasma. Cryoprecipitate is nothing but a combination of a few of the many coagulation factors that are carried by plasma. Those factors are in reality more related to the platelets than the plasma itself.

Coming from you I have no idea what the expression “=/=” is supposed to mean.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Nice way to skirt the point. Would you like me to go grab a 3^rd grader and ask him to explain it to you, or would that be inappropriate? =/= means “is not equal too.” It’s a math term.

Marvin wrote:

Here is a fact: Cryosupernatant is the ENTIRE remains after fractioning cryoprecipitate from plasma. Hence those two plasma fractions are the sum total of plasma.

Here is a fact: There is NO constituent in cryoprecipitate that is not also in cryosupernatant.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Yes, Tears of Oberon is aware of what Cryosupernatant is. He can read.

“After thawing and centrifugation, supernatant was separated from the cryoprecipitate with plasma expressers. The supernatant was then placed in a 37°C water bath for 5 to 10 min to allow any precipitate transferred with the supernatant to go back into solution, thus ensuring homogeneous sampling.”

Reference

Yarranton H.; Lawrie Y.; Mackie A.S.; Pinkoski L.; Corash I.F.; Machin S.F. (2005, September). Coagulation factor levels in cryosupernatant prepared from plasma treated with amotosalen hydroclhloride (S-59) and ultraviolet A light. Transfusion , pp. 1453-1459. Retrieved February 9, 2010 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=111&sid=5643914b-e6ef-4b33-a788-95f1cc83aac3%40sessionmgr112

In layman’s terms, it is simply the “stuff” left over when the cryoprecipitate is taken out of FFP (fresh frozen plasma).

OBERON 65

Marvin Shilmer wrote:

[quoting Tears of Oberon]:

Again, you need to actually prove your claims instead of expecting us to just accept them at face value. I personally don’t feel like doing your work for you however, because the burden of proof is yours. Also please remember, that a claim supported by no evidence requires no counter-evidence to dismiss. Therefore, your claim as it stands is rejected.

Regarding the composition of cryosupernatant and cryoprecipitate, referenced sources in my blog article support what I write.(Here: [link])

If you need an explicit statement from Watchtower on whether Witnesses can accept cryosupernatant as they can and do accept cryoprecipitate, you will have to ask Watchtower directly since it has seen fit to use terms other than cryoSUPERNATANT.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Care to tell us exactly where these other “terms” are?

It never does cease to amaze me that every time Mr. Shilmer attempts to quote a Watchtower publication, it either has nothing to do with what he’s talking about, or he is completely misrepresenting it. He lists two on his little wannabe ‘blog’ post.

5. The Watchtower, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, June 15, 2004 p. 22

6. Awake, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, August 2006 p. 9

From the first reference, we find:

“The medical article continued: “Witnesses’ religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of [fractions] such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these.” Since 1981, many fractions (breakdown elements derived from one of the four major components) have been isolated for use.” (Watchtower 22)

Where exactly does it reference cryosupernatant here?

The second reference gives us:

“Science and technology make it possible to identify and extract elements from blood through a process called fractionation. To illustrate: Seawater, which is 96.5 percent water, can be divided through fractionation processes in order to capture the remaining substances present, such as magnesium, bromine and, of course, salt. Likewise, blood plasma, which makes up more than half the volume of whole blood, is over 90 percent water and can be processed to harvest fractions including proteins, such as albumin, fibrinogen, and various globulins.

  As part of a treatment or therapy, a doctor might recommend concentrated amounts of a plasma fraction. An example of such is protein-rich cryoprecipitate…” (Awake 2006)

Again, where exactly does this mention the left-over cryosupernatant? Nowhere? Ok.

SHILMER 68

Marvin wrote:

[quoting Tears of Oberon]:

Why thank you.

No need for thanks. I believe it is important for folks to read various perspectives, and yours is no exception. But in the end, any given perspective either passes the litmus test of logical construction or it does not; either it is valid refutation or it is not. Readers will determine as they will based on exposure, education and training.

Tears of Oberon wrote:

Even that which “passes the litmus of logical construction” may be utterly ridiculous and devoid of any practical meaning, e.g., the “use FROM” arguments. I get further into this in my THIRD RESPONSE TO MARVIN SHILMER, which will be posted later.

Marvin wrote:

[quoting Tears of Oberon]:

Are you saying that the following is NOT your argument? Cus it sure sounds exactly like what you have been going on about to me.

“To use cryoprecipitate [=y] from blood [=x] is not to abstain from blood [=x]

JWs use cryoprecipitate [=y] from blood [=x]

JWs do not abstain from blood [=x]”

My premise would be that to “use from” blood is not to “abstain from” blood. That is to say, to eat something FROM blood would be contrary to abstaining from eating FROM blood. The particular use would be of no particular significance to the issue. In abstract terms the notion of “using from” is contrary to “abstaining from”. For THAT reason, it is then true to say using cryoprecipitate FROM blood is contrary to the notion of abstaining from blood.

As I’ve already brought out in correction to my assessment of your argument:

Using cryoprecipitate [=y] from blood [=x] is contrary to the notion of abstaining from cryoprecipitate [=y] from blood [=x].

The two sides should be equal to each other.

Additionally, because you’ve already stated that you do not believe that a “member of the body” can ever be identified with the whole body, so then you do not believe that cryoprecipitate is blood. And if blood is not USED, then the command to abstain from blood has not been violated. What you try to do is akin to saying that using [bananas] is violating the command to abstain from blood.

Marvin wrote:

[quoting Tears of Oberon]:

“The “all of anything” fallacy is not the same argument that I addressed in my first post. When I said that it was your argument, I didn’t mean that it was your ONLY argument. You have used both.”

It is not fallacy to point out the reality of the very doctrine in question.

Not a refutation of anything, but rather just flat denial.

Marvin wrote:

The reality is that Witnesses can literally accept ALL fractions from ANY component FROM blood.

Since THAT is the reality then substantiating the veracity of Watchtower’s blood doctrine requires addressing nothing less than that reality. Watchtower doctrine is not that Witnesses can accept some little tidbit. Witnesses can accept EVERYTHING from blood so long as it is sufficiently fractionated first. Do you need me to again quote Watchtower?

Tears of Oberon replied:

I don’t want you again quoting you will only either mutilate beyond all recognition or just plain not understand. That quote only means what you say it means to a hyper-literalist, egotistic maniac like yourself. But NOBODY actually signing the document is going to think to themselves, “Hmm…this says that I can accept all fractions, so I can take every faction in existence simultaneously if I need to!” Both ThirdWitness and myself have both stated in the past that we would indeed consider that to be “loop holing” and subsequently not acceptable, because we never disagreed with the premise that “all of anything is everything.”

SHILMER 69

Marvin wrote:

[quoting Tears of Oberon]

“Additionally, we have exposed this obvious lie many times before. What you reference does not mean that the Witness wants EVERY POSSIBLE FRACTION SIMULTANEOUSLY, which if what you want it to mean.

First, what you propose as what I mean is not necessarily true, though Watchtower doctrine DOES allow for it.

Tears of Oberon replied:

We’ve apparently smoked Mr. Shilmer out of his hole, because he is about to completely change his argument to a form not used previously.

Marvin wrote:

Second, no individual Witness needs to accept “EVERY POSSIBLE FRACTION SIMULTANEOUSLY” because Watchtower’s statement that Witnesses abstain for plasma, for example, is said of the community of Witnesses. The community of Witnesses certain is willing to accept EVERYTHING from blood in fraction form. Could you honestly say your FAMILY abstains from a ham sandwich on the basis that the sandwich is divvied up into separate components that individual members of your FAMILY then eat?

Tears of Oberon replied:

And now Marvin has apparently abandoned his first argument about individual Witnesses taking all fractions at once [Tears adds a tally to his score]

Here is a simple question: did any of them actually eat a ham sandwich?

Tears of Oberon ate the strained and filtered water retrieved from the ham package.

His wifey ThirdWitness-et ate raw mayonnaise

His brother Gareth ate raw salt chemically separated from his Romania sunca ham.

Did any of them eat what is defined as a “ham sandwich”? NO

Did any of them violate the command to abstain from ham sandwiches? NO

Did they as a community violate the command? NO

Marvin wrote:

Third, when it comes to plasma Watchtower doctrine has provided the opportunity for individual Witnesses to accept literally everything in plasma by accepting cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant. I am not asking you to accept this as true. I am only sharing what I have confirmed myself.

Tears of Oberon replied:

You are indeed asking us to accept your opinion as true, and yet, you have not evidenced that opinion in any way whatsoever. Your credibility isn’t so squeaky clean you know.

Marvin wrote:

Whether you decide to learn go to the well (Watchtower) and drink for yourself is up to you.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Better than downing gallons of apostate Kool-Aid alongside you…

Marvin wrote:

I already physicians are present this to Witness patients and those patients readily accept it, particularly for their children when it is the most viable means available to prevent serious morbidity or mortality.

Tears of Oberon replied:

1. Accept what? Precipitate or supernatant?

2. Even though I do not know why physicians would be disclosing the medical history of their patients in the first place, heresay is still not evidence (especially if they are your friends)

3. Even if you proved your claims as stated, you would still need to show that the substances were both taken simultaneously, AND that they (specifically cryo-supernatant) were taken openly, i.e., to the knowledge of the congregation.

For example: just because I go out and secretly steal somebody’s wallet would not necessarily mean that Watchtower teaches that stealing wallets is acceptable.

Marvin wrote:

[quoting Tears of Oberon]:

“That would simply be idiotic. It is in reality equivalent to saying that the Witness is willing to accept ANY TYPE of minor fraction.”

What you say is idiotic is PRECISELY black-letter Watchtower policy. Here is what Watchtower says:

“I accept ALL FRACTIONS derived from ANY primary component of blood.”--(Watchtower provided Durable Power of Attorney Document for Jehovah’s Witnesses dated 2001, emphasis added)

Tears of Oberon

Please excuse me while I go bang my head on a desk for the next half hour…

First of all, you already abandoned this argument when applied to individual Witnesses (which is precisely what I was referring to). You are talking out of both sides of your mouth again Mr. Shilmer.

Second, the durable power of attorney MEANS what every sane Witness on the planet thinks it means: that the person who signs it is willing to accept any TYPE of minor fraction, but not every single minor fraction in existence at once. Do you realize that you have still never shown one documented case of a Witness performing this incredible action, even though you claim that they “can and do” exactly such? If no Witness has EVER done what you claim they can do, then don’t you think that is a good indicator that your interpretation is, you know, WRONG!

Marvin wrote:

[quoting Tears of Oberon]:

Find me a documented case of a Witness in good standing openly accepting EVERYTHING from blood at once with no negative repercussions from their congregation.

Go look in your congregation files at ACTUAL durable power of attorney documents signed and witnessed. You will find more than a few who have WENT ON THE RECORD saying “I accept ALL FRACTIONS derived from ANY primary component of blood.”

What more do you need? I take those Witnesses at their word. Don’t you?

That isn’t what I asked you Marvin Shilmer. Quit skirting the issue, since you are apparently now back to applying this argument to individual Witnesses. I will ask you again, clearly:

Find me a documented case of a Witness in good standing OPENLY ACCEPTING [=actually performing the action which you claim they perform] everything from blood at once with no negative repercussions from their congregation.

If no Witness has EVER done what you claim they can do, then don’t you think that is a good indicator that your interpretations are wrong? Yes or No?

Your answer is? ___________________

Marvin wrote:

[quoting Tears of Oberon]:

I receive the command: Do not eat your friend’s body. So you are saying that I would be perfectly justified in chopping off my friends arm and eating it?

No—but not because his arm is his body. You would not be justified in chopping off your friends arm and eating it because to do so would be criminal assault, not to mention unloving. But that does not make your friends arm your friend’s body. Your friend’s arm is only a single part of your friend’s body. By itself, the arm would not be your friend’s body; it would be a piece of his body’s remains.

So then let me get this straight:

I exist in a perfectly empty universe, containing nothing but myself, my friend and a saw.

The only law of this universe is: Do not eat your friend.

Tears of Oberon saws off his friend’s arms and legs up to his torso, and then proceeds to eat them.

Tears of Oberon has not violated the only law of the universe.

Is that what you are saying Mr. Shilmer?

SHILMER 71

Marvin wrote:

No. Because the Christian requirement to “abstain from blood”[and from things strangled] is a reiteration of the Noachian Decree to abstain from blood and because the Noachian Decree was said of blood taken by slaughter then the Christian requirement is not said of donated blood.

The Noachian Decree said nothing of “slaughter.” You made that bit up yourself (as you do with most things).

Tears of Oberon

SHILMER 118

Marvin wrote:

My Opinion

Opinions are like noses…

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon gets frustrated with this subject because it eats up lots of his time, his resources and training are relatively limited, with a result that it is very hard if not impossible to keep up with the discussion he initiated as an accusation of another’s work [namely, me].

No man on this planet could keep up with the volume of posts you put out Marvin. Some of the main reasons are that (1) we don’t get paid to do this stuff like you do, (2) most people’s egos are not so overwhelming that they must seek and destroy all criticism immediately and at all costs.

Marvin said:

Tears of Oberon gets frustrated with this subject because it eats up lots of his time, his resources and training are relatively limited,

Tears of Oberon replied:

Notice how the first two reasons are in line with what Tears of Oberon has stated previously, and the third reason given by Mr. Shilmer is complete poppycock? Tell me Mr. Shilmer, how exactly do you know what the extent of my training is? How do you know what my recourses are? Are you even aware that as a student of Oklahoma State University, I have full access to all of their libraries as well as their electronic and online database subscriptions? An average, non-student researcher would kill for what I have.

Marvin Said:

The subject eats up lots of his time because his related knowledge base is very small by comparison with other posters.

Tears of Oberon replied:

The subject eats up a lot of Tears of Oberon’s time because he puts more thought and effort into his writing than other posters.

Marvin wrote:

Because other posters find it easy to respond in only a few minutes to virtually everything he presents as to its veracity, Tears of Oberon feels overwhelmed and wants to quit what he started.

One would expect Mr. Shilmer not to resort to such an obvious fallacy. Whether side A’s response is 10 words long and side B’s response is 500 words long, or whether side A’s response is 500 words long and side B’s side is 10 words long, the truth value of anything either side says is not dependent upon length.

If side A makes a 5 word claim in 10 seconds, and side B takes 2000 words and a full day to refute it completely, then side B is still right and side A is still wrong in the end.

Marvin wrote:

Though Tears of Oberon appears to have a decent library of Watchtower publications, his access to, ability to understand and collate vetted literature addressing related science is very limited.

Why should a Civil Engineer be well versed in field he has nothing to do with, namely medicine? That is like expecting a Professional Licensed Surveyor to “understand and collate vetted literature“ regarding structural engineering.

Tears of Oberon understands enough to at least ask questions and pick up what he needs to pick up from others when he does not have it. I picked up quite a bit from Mr. Shilmer during the course of both our legal debate and blood debate, and consider myself to be stronger than I was back then.

Besides all that, I should also like to point out that Mr. Shilmer has demonstrated time and time again that even though he trains himself so heavily in worldly wisdom and sciences, he has little to no ability to properly understand and interpret Biblical texts or related publications, e.g., Watchtower publications. In nearly all cases he has either (1) deliberated misrepresented such texts when used as a reference, (2) unintentionally misrepresented such texts and then deny, fight and weasel his way out of trouble when called for it.

Marvin wrote:

Because other posters do not suffer the same deficiency they find it easy to respond with little consumption of time, and, for this additional reason Tears of Oberon feels overwhelmed and wants to quit what he started.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Fallacious assumption already addressed by above.

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon is sincere.

Tears of Oberon wants to be honest.

Tears of Oberon is in way over his head.

Tears of Oberon finds himself believing something that he is unable to defend from a rational perspective.

Tears of Oberon is worried.

Tears of Oberon wants persons like Thirdwitness to take the stage so he can leave, lick his wounds and rethink his life.

Tears of Oberon may find himself suffering from trying to prove himself right rather than seeking whatever is sound, yielding to it, and then continuing to test his convictions to make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine.

Tears of Oberon replied:

You little list is amusing, because it applies just as much to you.

Marvin Shilmer is sincere (not really…)

Marvin Shilmer wants to be honest (not really…)

Marvin Shilmer is in way over his head.

Marvin Shilmer is forced train so heavily in formal logical construction because he knows that he would fail miserably without the ability to obfuscate and confuse his opponents by burying them under a mound of confusing language and absurd logical paradoxes.

Marvin Shilmer finds himself believing something that he is unable to defend from a common sense perspective.

Marvin Shilmer is worried.

Marvin Shilmer may find himself suffering from trying to prove himself right rather than seeking whatever is reasonable and rational and conformant to common sense, then yielding to it.

SHILMER 128

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon,

Please go to school and get some help with logical construct and destruct.

What you write regarding ocean water is a classic strawman. It does no good to attempt to demonstrate as absurd something that is remote from the issue at hand. If you must draw an analogy it must be one congruent with the subject.

One day you will think back on what you write here and be embarrassed to such a degree you will be tempted to deny what you write is your own writing.

Please. Seek education. You owe it to yourself and those whom you would teach.

I am laughing so hard at Mr. Shilmer right now, because this is so classically him. He has no response whatsoever to what I wrote, so he naturally resorts to insulting my intelligence instead of forming a cogent counter-argument and addressing the actual points.

So how about it Mr. Shilmer? Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with the conclusion of the argument as stated?

Your answer: _________________________

And how about another scenerio Mr. Shilmer, since the first scared you so much that you had to run away scared?

A unit of whole blood contains red blood cells.

An atom making up one of the red blood cells within said unit of blood contains an electron.

Through some process (exactly how is not important), the blood electron works its way free of the blood atom electron cloud, and is transferred to the glove of the doctor working with the blood, thence to the bedding of a patient, thence to the sweater lying on the side of the bed. After coming back from the bathroom, the patient is cold and so decides to put on the sweater containing the blood electron. After a little while, and noticing that he has a static charge, the patient slying scoots over to his roommate and touches him on the arm, thus shocking him with static electricity containing the blood electron.

Did the patient use FROM blood? Yes or No?

Your answer is: ______________________

Did the patient abstain from blood? Yes or No?

Your answer is: ______________________

Marvin wrote:

I ask you AGAIN:

If not both, then which of the following is prohibited by the Apostolic Decree:

1. Eating blood that is poured out.

Tears of Oberon replied:

If eating x is to not abstain from x, and x equals blood, then the man failed to abstain from blood.

Marvin continues:

2. Eating from blood that is poured out.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Item two presupposes the existence of a second variable, variable Y.

Eating y from x that is poured out,

where y is either equal to x or is some subcomponent of x. Therefore:

if the man eats some form of x that has not decomposed enough to lose its basic identity as x (i.e., remains a y that is equal to x), then the man has not abstained from x [=blood].

if the patient eats a sufficiently decomposed form of x that is determined to have lost its basic identity as x (i.e., where it becomes a y that is not equal to x), then the patient has failed to abstain from using y from x and nothing more.

SHILMER 152

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon's blog is recommended reading material for any person who wants to peer into the mind of persons loyal to Watchtower’s blood doctrine in the face of learned counterviews. Tears of Oberon responses to questions and presentations is, from my experience, typical of what to expect from a Watchtower loyalist.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Just because the one presenting a counter-view is “learned” (perhaps just in his own eyes), does not mean that he is any less likely to use deception and fallacious arguments. For example:

Retrieved February 11, 2010 from http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say." The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument's acceptance…the fact that an arguer may gain in some way from an argument's acceptance does not affect the evidentiary value of the argument, for arguments can and do stand or fall on their own merits.

Labossiere, Michael C. “Poisoning the Well.” Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0. Retrieved February 11, 2010 from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.

Marvin Shilmer wrote:

What Tears of Oberon writes at his blog speaks for itself; it needs no refutation composed by me for an educated reader.

Tears of Oberon replied:

I wrote 4200 words of new response to you Mr. Shilmer—you respond to approximately 200 below.

And after all of the bovine scatology Marvin spewed at me about “quitting,” “cowarding out,” and “not having the intelligence to respond,” he as the gall to just up and ignore 90% of what I wrote, and instead give nothing but two logical fallacies in the place of legitimate refutation. Here in Oklahoma, even us uneducated rednecks are able to recognize what Shilmer is doing as hypocrisy.

Marvin wrote:

Particularly, though, I am interested in Tears of Oberon’s answer to one specific question asked of him. The following question was presented to Tears of Oberon:

If not both, then which of the following is prohibited by the Apostolic Decree:

1. Eating blood that is poured out.

2. Eating from blood that is poured out.

Your answer is:_________

Note: The question asked does not presuppose there are no other prohibitions related to blood. The question is only asked in respect to the two items indicated.

Tears of Oberon replied:

I never stated that there were “other” prohibitions presupposed. All that I did was elaborate on the statements that you yourself made, because you are intentionally obfuscating [=being deceptive] by leaving off variables that should already be there.

Marvin continues

Tears’ answer to item two [2] above is this:

“Item two presupposes the existence of a second variable, variable Y.

“Eating y from x that is poured out,

“where Y is either equal to X or is some subcomponent of X. Therefore:

“if the man eats some form of X that has not decomposed enough to lose its
basic identity as X (i.e., remains a Y that is equal to X), then the man has not abstained from X [=blood].

“if the man eats a sufficiently decomposed form of X that is determined to have lost its basic identity as X (i.e., where it becomes a Y that is not equal to X), then the man has failed to abstain from using Y from X and nothing more.”

Marvin continues:

Here is my response to Tears of Oberon’s response:

1. My question presupposes nothing except that blood that has been poured out is being EATEN FROM. What precisely is eaten FROM that blood is a secondary issue my question does not ask. Because Tears’ response presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not even been asked then Tears’ response presents my statement as though one of presupposition when it is not, which makes Tears’ response a strawman.

Tears of Oberon replied:

You just plain do not get it Marvin. You CANNOT just leave off and ignore variables when they HAVE to be there to make the statement structurally valid! I did not make any “other” questions, I responded to the statement in its natural form and with the variables that the statement naturally implies. If Mr. Shilmer does not like the answer which Tears of Oberon provided, then he needs to phrase his question better, e.g., get rid of the ridiculous “FROM” term.

Elaborating further, I specifically said that in the second point, as Marvin states it, there is a hidden variable that is implied by the words “eat from.”

“eat from X” implies the question: eat what from X?

I supplied the “what,” in the form of variable Y, where Y may either be some subcomponent of X or X itself.

Marvin wrote:

2. The premise of “equal to X [i.e., blood]” is Tears of Oberon’s assertion. It is not found in the biblical text as though that is a determining factor to whether eating “X [i.e., blood]” is prohibited. The biblical statement is to “abstain from blood [and things strangled].” Tears’ response asserts this refers to EATING THAT WHICH IS blood as a substance rather than THAT WHICH WE CAN EAT FROM the substance of blood that is poured out.

Tears of Oberon replies:

The hypocrisy of Mr. Shilmer is astounding. He makes such a HUGE distinction between “use” and “use from” and “eat” and “eat from” and spends all of this time elaborating and telling us those differences, and yet the command in Acts does not contain either phrase!! And he can honestly sit there and accuse me of not using things found in the Biblical texts? I am only responding to what you gave me Mr. Shilmer, nothing more! You brought the “eat” and “eat from” distinction into this, not me!

P.S. while the phrases “eat from” and “use from” imply the variables “eat Y from X” and “use Y from X,” the same is not true with the phrase “abstain from.”

Trying to create the phrase, “abstain Y from X” makes no sense grammatically. It simply remains, “abstain from X,” with one variable in mind.

Marvin writes:

The premise asserted by Tears of Oberon would leave it entirely as a “conscience matter”[Watchtower jargon meaning: you can accept it without congregational repercussion] for an individual to intentionally fractionate blood that has been poured out with the results eaten so long as the fractionated items are not “whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma.”[1] In effect, Tears of Oberon’s premise provides a mechanism for a community [a family, etc] to convert, or have converted, a forbidden substance into acceptable substances, then eat the result and say the community [the family, etc] has abstained from the forbidden substance.

Tears of Oberon replied:

I already responded to this in my blog Mr. Shilmer, you are just parroting the exact same thing as before, as if I never wrote a word. This is why you actually need to address these things instead of just pretending they do not exist or rejecting them solely on the basis that you are Marvin Shilmer and we are not.

Marvin wrote:

I believe it is a very unique idea to suggest a community can abstain from thing “X” so long as it sufficiently fractionates thing “X” first. When law enforcement authorities find individuals who do this to property not of their own or who knowingly purchase such property, they tend to hold a dim view of it. Whether this unique idea is honest as a practice or as an assertion, readers will decide for themselves, which is as it should be.

Tears of Oberon wrote:

Again, it has already been responded to in my blog, located here under heading “SHILMER 69”:

http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2010/02/blood-02-additionreplacement.html

Additionally, his whole “law enforcement” analogy is non-parallel, and is thus a strawman. I have already dealt with the “hot merchandise fallacy in Section 2.0 of my original abstention article:

http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2009/09/blood-02-what-it-means-to-abstain.html

Marvin wrote:

Much thanks goes to Tears of Oberon for responding to the question above asked of him.

Marvin Shilmer

Tears of Oberon replied:

Much thanks to Marvin Shilmer for ignoring 90% of the other things I wrote in refutation of his points.

SHILMER 153

Marvin wrote:

I highly recommend interested readers to visit Tears of Oberon’s blog referenced above.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Why thank you for the endorsement. By the way, I would like to ask you something has actually been bugging me for a long time now.

How exactly did you first find my humble little blog Mr. Shilmer? Before you brought me over to here to Topix, I only rarely advertised the thing. I probably didn’t even have over 200 views when you first referenced it.

SHILMER 155

Marvin wrote:

Yes. Watchtower teaches that single members of the composition known as blood are, in effect, blood. For example, in effect Watchtower teaches that the single member of platelets is blood.

Large or small, attractive or ugly, vital or non-vital, no single member of a composite [the body] is the composite itself. Watchtower's blood doctrine ignores this biblical tenet.

So let’s get that one more time for the record Mr. Shilmer:

I don't eat oranges. I drink orange juice. I eat orange rind. I eat orange seeds. But I abstain from oranges? I wonder what type of fruit was on the tree of "the knowledge of good and evil"? Do you think that Adam should have juiced it first, and we'd be living in paradise?

SHILMER 158

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon,

Before I forget, and if I can figure out how to do it, do I have your permission to post a link at my blog to your blog for readers to see a view alternate to what is available from my perspective?

Tears of Oberon replied:

Your perspective is already given at my blog. I do not edit your words and points when I respond to them (I even posted them in full without interruption on my first response to you). However, if you want to post an actual comment [comment = reasonably brief] to my blog directly related to the article you wish to post it on, then feel free to submit a comment request. The comment boxes are at the bottom of each post.

If you wish to send me a larger response, then feel free to shoot me an email from the profile link at the very bottom of my blog. I would likely give it a post of its own, similar to what I did to your comment on “Mind of the Opposer.”

SHILMER 161

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon,

If in my responses here you find that I have not responded directly to something in particular you wanted my direct response to, please feel free to point it out to me. It is neither my intent nor my method to intentionally avoid answering questions that a participant feels is of special importance.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Respond to it all then, since you are so much more educated, and since the veracity of my points is so low that it should take you no time at all to go through all of the 4000 words that you ignored.

Tears of Oberon

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon,

I am curious about something.

On your blog you say “The Noachian Decree said nothing of ‘slaughter’” and you go on to assert that I made the bit up about slaughter in the Noachian Decree.

I do not understand how or why you would make that statement. Can you explain why you think the Noachian Decree says nothing of slaughter and that I just made this up?

Tears of Oberon replied:

I am also curious about something Mr. Shilmer. Is it now your contention that the Noachian decree permits selection ONLY from animals which are alive, and that it would NOT permit an already dead animal to be eaten?

Your answer is? ____________________

SHILMER 175

Marvin wrote:

There is a patient presentation that is treatable by doing precisely as Watchtower policy literally and explicitly provides for; giving the patient every bit of a volume of blood by fractionating it first beyond the forms known as whole blood, red cells, white cells, platlets or plasma.

My guess is that Tears is either unaware of this patient presentation or that he would rather ignore it in light of what Watchtower's blood doctrine allows in literal and explicit terms.

With this entry perhaps Tears will reveal whether he has this knowledge, or not. We shall see.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Tears of Oberon wrote earlier

“Additionally, we have exposed this obvious lie many times before. What you reference does not mean that the Witness wants EVERY POSSIBLE FRACTION SIMULTANEOUSLY, which if what you want it to mean.”

Marvin replied to Tears of Oberon, saying:

“First, what you propose as what I mean is not necessarily true…”

Marvin wrote in post 175:

“There is a patient presentation that is treatable by doing precisely as Watchtower policy literally and explicitly provides for; giving the patient every bit of a volume of blood by fractionating it”

Besides the fact that Mr. Shilmer is speaking out of both sides of his mouth again, I have already addressed this issue as it pertains to individual Witnesses, and have no desire to keep responding to someone who obviously has neither the capacity nor will to hear. As such, I will simply repeat the still ignored requests from post 58 and heading “SHILMER 69” of my blog:

“Find me a documented case of a Witness in good standing openly accepting EVERYTHING from blood at once with no negative repercussions from their congregation. If you cannot do that, then your statement is untrue and is simply fantasy.”

“The durable power of attorney MEANS what every sane Witness on the planet thinks it means: that the person who signs it is willing to accept any TYPE of minor fraction, but not every single minor fraction in existence at once. Do you realize that you have still never shown one documented case of a Witness performing this incredible action, even though you claim that they “can and do” exactly such? If no Witness has EVER done what you claim they can do, then don’t you think that is a good indicator that your interpretation is, you know, WRONG!?”

As for cryosupernatant (cryo-poor plasma):

You have already had this discussion at length with ThirdWitness. My views coincide with the views of ThirdWitness.

1. Watchtower publications never once mention anything about cryosupernatant (cryo-poor plasma). Mr. Shilmer has never shown us anything in any official publication that permits the use of cryosupernatant (cryo-poor plasma).

2. Tears of Oberon considers cryosupernatant (cryo-poor plasma) to still be plasma, due to the fact that cryosupernatant (cryo-poor plasma) contains everything that fresh frozen plasma contains, except in slightly lower volumes.

3. The name difference between cryosupernant and plasma is irrelevant. Cryosupernatant (cryo-poor plasma) simply describes a type of plasma (just a fresh frozen plasma describes a type of plasma), in the same manner that the term “Holstein” describes a specific type of cow. A Holstein is still a cow, and cryo-poor plasma is still plasma.

4. The mention of “hemophiliac preparations” in the Watchtower magazine does not authorize the use of cryosupernatant, just as it also does not authorize the use of fresh frozen plasma, which is also a hemophiliac preparation. Because they are both plasma, the prohibition on plasma in general includes cryosupernatant (cryo-poor plasma).

And if you wish to discuss this further, go and re-read the debates that you have already had, or go find ThirdWitness and have him trounce you again.

Tears of Oberon

OBERON 254

Tears of Oberon wrote:

Mr. Shilmer’s posts in response to my new argument have not as of yet merited a full response, because he has not even understood the point of my argument yet, let come close to addressing it. My argument clearly and cogently demonstrated that:

1.      To [use] is contrary to [abstain from]

2.      To [use] from is contrary to [abstain from] from

3.      To [use] from is NOT contrary to [abstain from]

4.      To [use] is NOT contrary to [abstain from] from

Marvin Shilmer agreed with Tears of Oberon that “abstain from” is a single, compound term. It only implies one variable:

Abstain from X

However, the phrase “use from” is NOT a single, compound term. The phrase “use from” is TWO terms, which implies two variables.

Use X + From Y

If one wishes to keep the argument balanced, then the right side must contain two terms just as the left side contains two terms.

Use X + From Y is contrary to Abstain from X + From Y

Mr. Shilmer’s incessant cry of “strawman” is pointless—Tears of Oberon cannot use the argument as Marvin Shilmer stated it, because Tears of Oberon demonstrated that the argument as Marvin Shilmer stated it was INVALID! Therefore, Tears of Oberon provided Marvin Shilmer with two ways of making his invalid argument valid. It is that simple.

Tears of Oberon

(sorry if this accidentally double posts--I do not know what will happen yet)