Jehovah's Witness Research Blog: ABSTENTION RAW DEBATE PART II

OBERON 257

Marvin wrote:

-- I abstain from blood.

-- I use from blood.

Those are two complete sentences, and each says something. What do you think they mean of not what they say?

Tears of Oberon replied:

Once again, Mr. Shilmer just doesn't get it (I think that this is intentional ignorance)

The phrase, "I abstain from" implies the question: abstain from what? Marvin Shilmer proved that he understood this implied question by supplying the answer himself: blood.

I abstain from blood [=X]

Reduces to:

I [abstain from] X

where [abstain from] is a single compound term.

The phrase, "I use from" implies two questions: use what from what?

To use FROM blood implies the question: use WHAT from blood? There is a second variable in that statement, which I simply called Y.

I use minor fractions from blood

Reduces to:

I use X from Y

What part of this do you not get Mr. Shilmer?

OBERON 260

Tears of Oberon wrote:

Just because you do not provide an answer to the implied question does not mean that it just magically goes away. If there is no supplied answer, then it should remain a blank (filled in with a place-holding syntatic substituend, i.e. a variable) until you do supply an answer.

Other than that, you have not addressed my points Mr. Shilmer.

I too respect your willingness to participate; however, I cannot currently respect your stubbornness and pride. It is ok to admit that you are wrong from time to time Mr. Shilmer (which I have as of yet never once seen you do) I admitted that I was wrong on my original abstention article, and I admitted that I was wrong with what I presented at the start of this thread. And because I admit my mistakes, I can learn from them and make my arguments stronger.

OBERON 262

Marvin wrote:

then to prove Watchtower’s blood doctrine true you have to show at least ALL of the following, and more too should you be successful:

1.“Eating blood” refers to blood regardless of whether it is residual blood or blood that is poured out.—(I think responding to this will compel you to rethink the assumption related to whether the Apostolic Decree speaks to blood that is “poured out”.)

2. The “blood” we are to abstain from includes blood donated and blood obtained by killing rather than only blood obtained by killing.—(Will you make assumptions on this such as you decline to accept in your statement above?)

3. Transfusion of blood is equivalent to “eating blood”.—(Will you make assumptions on this such as you decline to accept in your statement above?)

Tears of Oberon replied:

Yes, indeed we will take on these burdens Mr. Shilmer, but they will not be mere assumptions. We will establish these things to adequate levels of inductive strength in time. But for right now, we must focus on the issue at hand (the basic abstention argument).

As a compromise, will you concede my points on the basic abstention argument, since I have agreed to take on the three burdens you presented above?

OBERON 264

Marvin wrote:

To satisfy your need for a placeholder, as you call it here, I expressed the following for you in my post number 244 at:

The premise in dispute does not assert

--“JWs use minor fraction [=X] from blood [=Y]”

The premise in dispute asserts:

-- JWs use from blood [=Y] to get minor fraction [=X]

Tears of Oberon replied:

There is no difference between the two. The are equivalent, just in different order

Marvin wrote:

Hence the context of what use from blood is involved my premise can be restated as:

-- To use from blood as a source to get fractions as food is contrary to abstaining from blood as a source for food.

Do you agree or disagree with that premise stated in full context?

Tears of Oberon replied:

No I do not. That argument is no different than the one I called invalid--you just added more stuff to it. It should really be:

To use fractions from blood as a source as food is contrary to abstaining from fractions from blood as a source for food.

Making your statement more complicated by tacking on more and more stuff is the opposite of what you should be doing--you should be trying to SIMPLIFY, not OBFUSCATE.

OBERON 268

Marvin wrote:

Do you agree or disagree with the following restated premise:

-- To use from blood as a source to get fractions as food is contrary to abstaining from blood as a source for food.

Tears of Oberon replied:

I REJECT the premise as stated on the basis that it deserves an F for clarity and elegance. The "as food" portion is irrelevant, and should not have been included in the first place. The "to get fractions" portion is actually the answer to the implied X before "from blood," and as such should be stricken and moved into the place of the X.

To use X [=fractions] from blood as a source is contrary to abstaining from X [=fractions] from blood as a source.

This form actually makes clear WHAT exactly is being used. Your form only makes it harder to determine.

Marvin Shilmer wrote:

If not, then do you agree or disagree with either or both of the following statements:

-- To use blood as a source for food is contrary to abstaining from blood as a source for food.

Tears of Oberon replied:

This is quite cleverly weasel worded. It is still difficult to determine exactly WHAT is being used in this form. What does "source" imply? Does it imply that fractions or portions can be taken from the blood, or do you only intend whole blood? If you only intended whole blood, then there is no point in adding the words "as a source" in the first place. In terms of elegance, it is much better to simply strike them.

To use blood for food is contrary to abstaining from blood for food

Marvin Shilmer wrote:

--To use from blood as a food source is contrary to abstaining from blood as a food source.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Again, Mr. Shilmer only makes the argument murkier, not clearer. "Food" is no longer an isolated variable here--it has become a modifier of "source" and is thus part of the compound term [food source]. That leaves us with the glaring omission of what exactly is taken FROM this [food source].

My answer would be:

To use X from blood as a food source is contrary to abstaining from X from blood as a food source.

Tears of Oberon

OBERON 270

Marvin wrote:

-- It is acceptable to use from blood as a food source by extracting fractions from blood and eating them.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Tears of Oberon replied:

As I mentioned in my previous post, you are obfuscating on what exactly is being used. The implied variable X is still there...Your statement actually reads:

It is acceptable to use X from blood as a food source by extracting fractions [=X] from blood and eating them.

As long as X does not = blood, then yes I agree.

OBERON 271

Marvin wrote:

Simple Question for Tears of Oberson:

--“We use from blood as a food source by fractioning it and eating fractions from that blood, but we abstain from blood.”

Is that statement honest or dishonest?

Tears of Oberon replied:

The statement is incomplete. It implies the question: use WHAT from blood?

We use X from blood as a food source by fractioning blood and eating fractions [=X] from that blood.

If X does not equal blood, then yes we have not eaten blood and have thus abstained from blood.

OBERON 276

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon,

Do I understand you correctly that you believe the following statement is honest:

-- "We use blood that is poured out from an animal to fraction it so we can eat fractions for food, and we abstain from blood."

Agree or disagree?

Tears of Oberon replied:

Disagree, because you are using the word "abstain" in its most natural sense, with no restrictions or context. You fail to abstain from the fractions by the action of eating the fractions. You fail to abstain from the blood by the action of handling and working with the blood (though you are not actually eating blood in the end).

But remember too, that just handling or touching blood has never been at issue here.

Tears of Oberon

OBERON 277

Marvin wrote:

Tears,

BTW, in my statement when I use "fractions" I am speaking of constituents that are rendered beyond the forms known as red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma.

Tears of Oberon replied:

Noted.

Marvin wrote:

-- "We use blood that is poured out from an animal to fraction it so we can eat fractions for food, and we abstain from blood."

Honest or dishonest statement?

Tears of Oberon replied:

Same answer as my previous post. It untrue as stated, but still does not actually address any relevant issue, because we have never argued about the rightness or wrongness of simply handling blood.

But remember also, you at one point in this debate said to Teleologist(?) that it is much closer to the real life situation if we make the fractionation INDIRECT, e.g., someone else fractionates and handles the blood while we only use the fractions.

Tears of Oberon

OBERON 281

Marvin wrote:

Then how about this statement:

-- "We pay to have blood that is poured out from an animal for it to be reduced to fractions so we can eat fractions for food, and we abstain from blood."

Honest or dishonest?

Based on what you have written on your blog it seems to me the lack of abstaining from those fractions does not affect the statement “we abstain from blood” from your perspective.

Tears of Oberon replied:

So long as the minor fraction in question does not equal blood, then we have not eaten blood and have thus abstained from blood. That is my position, in all its simplicity, and in harmony with the arguments that I have made.

However (knowing where you are going), if we get into the "Criteria for Equivalence," then I would also agree that:

If blood consists of components [a, b, c, d, e, ect.], then to use all components,[a, b, c, d, e, ect.] would be to use blood. I have never disagreed with this (even you though accused me of disagreeing). Therefore, to take blood and cook it, in my opinion, would be violating the command to not eat blood, because no components have been isolated.

Your only response to this, I have noted, is to quote a 9 year old durable power of attorney from (presumably) Alabama, in which you cite a phrase and use said phrase to create a loophole whereby a Witness, by exploiting the loophole, would be allowed to use every component and thus use blood.

This issue will be my next blog article though. In it I will discuss such things as:

1. Even if a loophole is technically possible according to the letter of the law, is such loop-holing still in harmony with the SPIRIT/INTENT of the law.

2. Why use only a 9 year old DPA from Alabama? DPS vary from state to state depending on statutes, and can and are updated. My DPA uses the phrase "I REFUSE ALL EXCEPT" instead of "I ACCEPT ALL."

3. Get farther into the "Criteria for Equivalence" and note any quirks or exceptions.

But as I said, I will deal with all of that in the future, in a separate article.

Tears of Oberon

MARVIN 289

Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:

However (knowing where you are going), if we get into the "Criteria for Equivalence," then I would also agree that:

Tears of Oberon,

Marvin replied:

Thanks for your response. I am not particularly going anywhere with my questions to you as I am trying to make sure I understand your position in respect to abstention.

In that spirit, and based on what you write above, how about this statement:

-- "We pay to have blood that is poured out from an animal for it to be fractioned making sure that all of the components of a, b, c, and d[1] are not left together and that none of those components remain intact so we can eat the result, and we abstain from blood.”

1. a, b, c and d represent red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma.

Honest or dishonest?

Tears of Oberon responds:

First of all, eat what result? You don’t ever bother to specify that Mr. Shilmer, and I can’t exactly respond to you until you do specify.

Second, having a, b, c, and d represent the four major formed cells/elements of blood won’t work, because ThirdWitness and myself have already stated that we believe that the four major formed cells/elements of blood still carry enough blood-ness about them to meet the Criteria for Equality. Thus, to use any of the four major formed cells/elements of blood would a failure to abstain from blood.

MARVIN 290

Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:

Tears of Oberon

Marvin replied:

The reason I quote the 2001 document is because it presents the policy in succinct terms. I could cite the DPA document you use but the policy is not as succinctly. To use your DPA I’d have to quote the instruction page that accompanies the DPA document where it says,“NOTE: If the options in point 3 do not represent your choices, use point 6 [blank lines] to express your wishes, such as:“I accept all minor fractions of blood” or …”

Tears of Oberon responds:

1. The document I cite is 9 years more current, and is thus carries more weight.

2. I have no clue what you are talking about when you go on about being “less succinct.” As far as I can tell, all you really mean by “less succinct” is that you can’t force it to fit your mutilated, quibbling interpretation.

3. There are no “accompanying documents” for DPAs in Oklahoma. There is a single DPA document with (as of February 2010) 11 items front and back, nothing more.

Marvin wrote:

Watchtower policy is to leave Witnesses free to “accept all fractions derived from any primary component of blood,” or, said another way,“accept all minor fractions of blood.”

No, it isn’t. That is the policy that YOU made up out of thin air and are forcing upon the Witnesses for the sake of your ridiculous strawman. Please consider the following terms.

1.0 Loophole

Loophole. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Retrieved February 15, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

Main Entry: loophole

Function: noun

2: a means of escape; especially: an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract or obligation may be evaded.

2.0 Quibble

Quibble. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Retrieved February 15, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quibble

Main Entry: quibble

Pronunciation: \]kwi-bel\

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): quibbled; quibbling

Date: 1656

intrasitive verb

1: to evade the point of an argument by caviling about words.

quib·ble (kw

intr.v. quib·bled, quib·bling, quib·bles

1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.

2. To find fault or criticize for petty reasons; cavil.

1. A petty distinction or an irrelevant objection.

2. Archaic A pun.

quib

bler n.

Synonyms: quibble, carp¹, cavil, niggle, nitpick, pettifog
These verbs mean to raise petty or frivolous objections or complaints: quibbling about minor details; a critic who constantly carped; caviling about the price of coffee; an editor who niggled about commas; tried to stop nitpicking all the time; pettifogging about trivialities

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

quibble [kwɪb^əl]

vb (intr)

1. to make trivial objections; prevaricate

2. Archaic to play on words; pun

1. a trivial objection or equivocation, esp one used to avoid an issue

2. Archaic a pun

[probably from obsolete quib, perhaps from Latin quibus (from quī who, which), as used in legal documents, with reference to their obscure phraseology]

quibbler n

quibbling adj & n

quibblingly adv

Noun

1. quibble - an evasion of the point of an argument by raising irrelevant distinctions or objections

cavil, quiddity

equivocation, evasion - a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth

Verb

1. quibble - evade the truth of a point or question by raising irrelevant objections

evade, hedge, sidestep, skirt, parry, fudge, circumvent, dodge, elude, duck, put off - avoid or try to avoid fulfilling, answering, or performing (duties, questions, or issues); "He dodged the issue"; "she skirted the problem"; "They tend to evade their responsibilities"; "he evaded the questions skillfully"

2. quibble - argue over petty things; "Let's not quibble over pennies"

bicker, brabble, pettifog, squabble, niggle

argue, contend, debate, fence - have an argument about something

3.0 Commentary

Wikipedia gives a nice example of a loophole on their page:

“In 2005, Wal-Mart planned a store in Calvert County, Maryland. While a law in the county restricted the size of a retail store to 75,000 square feet, Wal-Mart considered a plan that would dodge this restriction by building two separate smaller stores. Though Wal-Mart later withdrew this controversial plan, the plan highlighted a legal loophole.”

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601271.html

I liked the Walmart example quite a bit, especially in relation to our opposer’s obsession with the wording on the DPAs. As the referenced Washington Post article stated, “Wal-Mart realizes it's in their own political and financial interest not to play games with ordinances by trying to wordsmith their way around size caps." Even if Walmart could have technically gotten away from it according to the letter of the law, they would have likely been chastised by the ones who wrote the law in the first place for violating its spirit and intent. In a similar vein, Jehovah’s Witnesses also realize that it is wrong to try to “wordsmith” their way around the basic intent of the Advance Directives/DPAs. The intent of all Advance Directives/DPAs is to prevent the taking in of blood or its primary components. No loophole, even if “wordsmithed” into reality by ambiguity in the language, should contravene that basic intent.

Indeed, this is precisely the reason why I have asked my opponent repeatedly (three or four times now?) to put forth a case of ANY Witness in, ANY place where the ‘loophole’ language exists, actually using such a loophole and taking in 100% equivalence of blood in minor fractions, AND doing it openly AND with no negative repercussions from their congregation. If my opponent cannot manage to provide even one such case [1], then it follows that the Witnesses understand the phrasing in the same manner I do, and would consequently NOT use every conceivable fraction of blood at once (even if such a thing were possible).

Footnote:

Just because Tears of Oberon secretly goes and shoots someone in the head, does not mean that Watchtower approves of his actions or that Watchtower allows for shooting people in the head. If one wanted to attempt to determine what Watchtower’s actually feelings about shooting people in the head are, then he would need to do the shooting openly, and see how his congregation reacts. Similarly, if one wishes to attempt to prove that “using every minor fraction at once” is in harmony with the intent and spirit of the advance directive, then he would need to provide a case of a Witness taking such an action openly and with no negative repercussions from their congregation. To date, my opponent has FAILED miserably to show me any such case, even though he has repeatedly claimed that such a scenario “can and DOES happen.”

Marvin wrote:

I do not understand your assumption of an Alabama DPA.

Tears of Oberon responds:

You are actually Mr. Randy Jensen, and you work in Auburn Alabama (that isn’t exactly a secret…); therefore, it is likely that you are using an old Alabama DPA.

Marvin wrote:

Every state in the United States was issued a DPA document in year 2001 based on variations in State laws. But all these DPA documents held the specific language I quote. I’d have to retrieve the hardcopy originals in my library to see which States I have in my collection. Does the State a DPA was issued to make a difference for you?

Tears of Oberon responds:

Yes, because not all of them contain that language (see point #3 above in this same post heading)

Marvin wrote:

I also have DPA documents issued to Witnesses outside the United States. The one issued in year 2006 in the United Kingdom says,“Regarding minor fractions of blood… I accept all”. Same policy. Does it matter to your deliberations the Branch from which a DPA document is issued?

Tears of Oberon responds:

You shouldn’t just assume that people are idiots with no resources, and that they will not fact check when you throw out lies and half truths.

I also have DPAs from outside the United State and from inside the United States, and they DO NOT contain that language.

DPA/ADVANCE DIRECTIVE PHRASING

It should be noted first and foremost, that there are different directive details from state to state and country to country about our power of attorney cards. There is not 'one size-fits-all' answer as it could vary or need additions (as per case in one USA county where an experimental technique was going to be tried on all Emergency patients entering hospital) and the JWs had to wear a bracelet to show they chose not to be part of the Program as some would receive non-blood products on entry but others would get blood as a 'control group'. We are given directions that are in accord with our local needs to comply with state laws.

That being said, let us move on to the survey results.

Based on a Survey of Eleven of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Including Myself)

California – “refuse all except”

Georgia – “refuse all except”

Kentucky – “refuse except”

Oklahoma – “refuse all except”

Oregon – “refuse except”

Tenessee – “refuse except”

Canada – “refuse all except

Caribbean – “refuse all except”

Philippines – “refuse all except”

Russia (St. Petersburg) – “refuse all except”

United Kingdom (England) – “I accept all”

MARVIN 292

Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:

But thank you for openly disagreeing with Mr. Shilmer though. I will note your post and use it in a future article.

Tears of Oberon,

Marvin replied:

Auldsoul must speak for himself, but I do not see what he has written as a disagreement with anything I have said.

It is important to note from what perspective a thought is expressed. It appears to me Auldsoul's remark in question was said from the perspective you hold, which appears to be also the perspective held by Watchtower.

From my perspective, which disagrees with yours to a considerable degree [but not entirely], what Auldsoul would assert is not disagreeable.

Because Watchtower has a teaching that says eating platelets [bacon] from blood [a pig] is eating blood [pig] then for him to use that in a way that challenges your view is not disagreeing with me, it is challenging you.

My guess is that were you to ask Auldsoul whether he agrees or disagrees with me that no component of blood is by itself blood, he would agree with my view that it is not. But, that is purely in respect to my perspective and has nothing whatsoever to do with Watchtower teaching.

Tears of Oberon responds:

And this is exactly what I was referring to when I said that Auldsoul was contradicting you Mr. Shilmer. It appears to Tears of Oberon (and everyone else who can read) that you hold that eating bacon IS NOT violating the command to “not eat pig,” because according to you, “no single component” can ever hold equivalence with the whole. Aulsoul actually agrees with Watchtower and myself however, because something such as bacon has not decomposed enough to lose its primary identification with the term “pig,” just as the major formed cells known as blood platelets have not decomposed enough to lose their identification with the term “blood.” In my eyes, bacon and platelets both meet the as of yet not published Criteria of Equivalence.

Tears of Oberon

MARVIN 293

Marvin wrote:

Blood[1] as a Resource

Tears of Oberon is making an in-depth search of Watchtower’s doctrinal position on blood, and how Watchtower can honestly say Witnesses “abstain from blood” as a consequence. This is something every Witness should do. It is scriptural to examine teachings to make sure of all things in order to hold fast to what is fine.

Tears of Oberon responds:

They are already correct on this issue, so it is not that important of an issue for them to keep obsessing over. I am only discussing this issue now because YOU are the one obsessing and raising a fuss over it, and consequently need to be shut up by someone.

Marvin wrote:

Under Watchtower’s blood doctrine Witnesses use blood as a resource to supply things from blood which they have a deficiency of. They do this by paying others for the service of collecting, fractionating and delivering parts from blood to supply their need. So long as the product delivered is not whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, Witnesses can and do buy the product for their own consumption.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Correct, if the consumed material is not blood or does not hold conceptual equivalence with blood (such as with red blood cells, white blood cells, blood platelets and plasma), then the Witnesses have abstained from blood.

Marvin wrote:

If the Apostolic Decree to abstain from blood [and things strangled] is a requirement to abstain from using blood as a resource, then it is false to say Witnesses abstain from blood. This is my perspective.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Use blood as a resource for what? Without an answer to this question, then his conclusion does not follow his premises and is invalid. This is my perspective.

Marvin wrote:

If the Apostolic Decree to abstain from blood [and things strangled] is a requirement to abstain from using blood as a resource for nutritional benefit and if transfusing constituents from blood provides nutritional benefit, then it is false to say Witnesses abstain from blood. This is also my perspective.

Tears of Oberon wrote:

So in other words, you are saying that:

If abstaining from X in such and such way is against the Apostolic Decree, and Witnesses use Y in such and such way, then the Witnesses have not abstained from X.

That doesn’t make a lick of sense Mr. Shilmer.

Marvin wrote:

If the Apostolic Decree to abstain from blood [and things strangled] is a requirement to abstain from using blood as a food source, and if transfusing constituents from blood provides nutritional benefit as food, then it is false to say Witnesses abstain from blood. This is my perspective, too.

Tears of Oberon responds:

You have a lot of “perspectives” don’t you? Too bad none of them make any sense. Once again, you are obfuscating on exactly what is being used for nutritional purposes. You have said repeatedly that, “no component of blood is by itself blood.” So you are really going to sit there and tell me that using something that eating something which is clearly not blood (according to you) violates the command to not eat blood? To me, that is the equivalent of saying that eating mangos violates the command to not eat apples. It is lunacy! (admit it, you missed that word).

Marvin wrote:

If the Apostolic Decree to abstain from blood [and things strangled] is a requirement to abstain from using blood as a food source, and Witnesses were to pay others to extract nutritional constituents from blood for them to eat, then it would be false to say Witnesses abstain from blood.

Tears of Oberon wrote:

No, it would only be false to say that Witnesses abstain from those particular “constituents.” Unless you actually prove that those “constituents” are blood, then the Witnesses have abstained from blood.

Marvin wrote:

When I say in respect to Watchtower’s assertions of Witnesses abstaining from blood,

-- To use from is contrary to abstain from

My remark is to say the thoughts expressed above. Surely there are other ways of expressing my view other than the three above, but the net effect of meaning remains the same. My remark is said of using blood as a source, or as a resource.

Tears of Oberon

Again, as a source (or resource) for what? Mr. Shilmer is hopping back and forth between actually using blood and using components from blood that he doesn’t even consider to be blood in the first place.

Marvin wrote:

My remark is not said specific to using that which is “blood” and only that which is “blood” as an end product. My remark is said of making use of the substance of blood as a source material; as a resource.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Again, as a source or resource for obtaining what? The problem of not identifying what is actually being used persists.

Marvin wrote:

In essence, my remark [premise] disputes the notion that we can use blood as a supermarket from which to take what we want, and then honestly say we have abstained from that blood; the supermarket.

Tears of Oberon responds:

This is really a failure of a parallel (even by Marvin’s standards). It has been made well known that Witnesses hold that the Apostolic Decree means:

Do not eat blood.

So are you honestly saying that

Do not eat a supermarket

Is a parallel example?!

Sure, we might fail to abstain if we walk in and start gnawing on the walls or something, but I hardly see how eating an apple could constitute a violation of the command to not eat supermarkets.

Marvin wrote:

1. In each instance where I use the word “blood” it is referring only and strictly to blood that is bled, extracted or otherwise removed from its original host. I do not use the term at all in regard to residual blood that God gives us permission to eat as an unavoidable consequence of eating meat.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Well that is funny isn’t it? If God never cared about residual blood within carcasses, then he surely wouldn’t have bothered to give his covenant people all kinds of laws and restrictions about removing the blood from the body to the best of their ability. Oh wait, God DID give such commands—my bad.

As has already been discussed in the past, eating meat was allowed to the Israelites so long as they took reasonable efforts to avoid what blood they could (they could not, and we cannot even today remove every microscopic, trace of blood from our meat). Deliberately eating blood from unbled carcasses or making no reasonable efforts to remove such blood, however, has always been forbidden.

MARVIN 295

Marvin wrote:

Fractions and Food

Blood is not the only fractionated composition Watchtower speaks of. How does Watchtower treat other products the result of substantial fractionation, and eating those products?

Tears of Oberon responds:

Oh Lord, here we go…my “completely obscure, completely absurd argument pulled from hat” sense is tingling again…

Marvin wrote:

Adam and Eve were told,

“And God went on to say:“Here I have given to you all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth and every tree on which there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed. To you let it serve as food. And to every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it came to be so.”—(Genesis 1:29-30)

Watchtower teaches that because animals ate/eat vegetation, fractionate it and convert those fractions into meat provides no basis to argue that humans could eat meat as though meat were no more than green vegetation that had been fractionated and reformed as a viable edible product.[1]

Tears of Oberon responds:

Yes, that is quite logical. The vegetation decomposed enough to lose its identity as “vegetation,” and then was reconstituted enough (when combined with other non-vegetable chemicals within the body and subjected to various chemical reactions) to gain a new identity as something which was prohibeted, i.e., meat.

Marvin wrote:

In essence, Watchtower says that making use of fractions derived from vegetation was unacceptable because the immediate source of those fractions [meat] was not on the menu as a food source for humans.

Tears of Oberon responds:

*bangs head on desk*

Watchtower says no such thing—you are building strawmen yet again. Honestly, every time I think of this movie now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-sALU_hveA

I imagine the monster being made out of straw instead of marshmellow, because your strawmen are just about that size Mr. Shilmer.

The vegetable fragments only became unacceptable once they took on the identity as “meat,” and not a second before. The vegetation was not unacceptable because of the meat. The meat was not unacceptable because of vegetation. The meat was unacceptable simply because it was meat! Vegetation and meat are different entities Mr. Shilmer!

Marvin wrote:

In this case, the source/resource of animal flesh is the important thing; the source is said to be unacceptable from which to eat.

Tears of Oberon wrote:

No…its not. The ultimate source (vegetation) has NOTHING to do with the prohibition on meat whatsoever! If it carries the identity as meat, then don’t eat it! It is that simple, and doesn’t require any tracing back to plant life or banning vegetation or even banning water (since the plant life built itself up using water in a similar manner to how animals built meat using plants).

Marvin wrote:

From the perspective of source/resource this Watchtower teaching disputes the notion that we can use blood as a source from which to eat so long as it is sufficiently fractionated first.

Tears of Oberon responds:

It does no such thing…you are getting delusional. Oh and by the way, you are still using the exact same thing that I have been grilling you on for about 20 posts now.

use blood as a source from which to eat

Is the same as saying:

eat from blood as a source

Which is the same as:

eat SOMETHING from blood as a source.

And as we have discussed, that “something” needs to be equal to blood, or else the eater has not eaten blood.

eat [MEAT] from [VEGETATION] as a source

is a parallel statement, and yet no rational person would accept that eating meat is violating a prohibition on vegetation. If I eat meat, then I have failed to abstain from meat, not vegetation (even though the vegetation was the ultimate source of the meat).

Marvin wrote:

That is, because the source [blood] was off the menu then eating from that source [blood] was not allowed.

Tears of Oberon responds:

That is, because the source [vegetation] was off the menu, then eating [meat] from that source [vegetation] was not allowed.

Does that parallel statement make any sense? Neither does Mr. Shilmer’s statement.

Marvin wrote:

On the other hand, this particular teaching of Watchtower says that once a source is fractionated and those fractions reformed as new product that the new product is not the original product.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Depends on the level of decomposition. In the case of vegetation being converted by a body into muscle tissue, there is a huge, huge chemical change that takes place, resulting in a product that is about as remote from vegetation as I am from Paris, France. Of course, Watchtower is not talking about the same subject that Mr. Shilmer is talking about, so everything Mr. Shilmer is attributing and imputing to Watchtower is his opinion only, based solely on a single, specific, context restricted example.

Marvin wrote:

This perspective would support Watchtower’s teaching that, in effect, says once blood is sufficiently fractionated with new products the result, those new products are no longer blood but something entirely new.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Who said anything about “new products” being a criteria for a substance losing its identity? You don’t have to decompose and then recompose to lose your identity. 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. The only requirement is losing, not losing then gaining back again.

Marvin wrote:

This creates a dilemma for Watchtower doctrine.

Tears of Oberon responds:

This oughta be good *grabs popcorn bag*

Marvin writes:

If we accept that converting blood to fractions means…

Tears of Oberon responds:

“Breaking down,” “decomposing” or “fractionating” would be a better action verb than “converting.”

Marvin continues:

…we can eat those fractions then it means, by virtue of fractionating green vegetation, animal flesh was on the menu for Adam and Eve.

Tears of Oberon responds:

No, it doesn’t, because the entity known as meat was still prohibited up until the express lifting of that prohibition after the flood, regardless the meat’s ultimate source, i.e., vegetation.

Marvin wrote:

This would directly dispute Watchtower’s teaching regarding eating green vegetation and meat, and Watchtower’s reasoning to achieve that teaching.

Tears of Oberon responds:

A dispute? Really? Have I missed something, because I most certainly haven’t seen anything remotely causing dispute in what the article stated.

Marvin wrote:

If we say that converting fractions into a new product does not make that new product acceptable to eat, as Watchtower does regarding green vegetation and meat,

Tears of Oberon responds:

The acceptability or unacceptability of the end product has nothing to do with the source or the “fractions” that he end product came from. Meat was not acceptable because it was prohibited (up until after the flood), and NOT because of anything to do with “fractions” or “vegetation” or “ultimate sources.” You make things way too complicated Mr. Shilmer.

Marvin continued:

then we directly dispute Watchtower’s teaching that eating fractions from blood is perhaps acceptable.

Tears of Oberon responds:

If the fraction in question does not carry conceptual equality with blood, then using that particular non-blood fraction is not a violation of the command to abstain from blood. Simple and clean yes?

Marvin wrote:

Which of these concepts will Tears of Oberon select?

Tears of Oberon responds:

I have disputed both.

MARVIN 296

Marvin wrote:

Potential Scriptural Perspective -- Use but Abstain

From:

1. Vegetation is fractionated and converted to meat.

2. Eating meat was not eating vegetation.

We have:

1a. Blood is fractionate and converted to X

1a. Eating X is not eating blood.

Watchtower presents a view that though meat is a conversion of vegetable fractions that meat was nevertheless disallowed as a food source to eat from. Hence Adam was not supposed to use meat as a food source.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Mr. Shilmer is horribly confused about causality and the dependency of arguments here. Watchtower is not basing the extremely well accepted idea that meat was prohibited pre-flood on this “conversion from vegetation to meat” argument. Watchtower is using an already previously established conclusion that meat was prohibited as a basis for dismissing the absurd idea that animals could be eaten because they are really nothing but “formed vegetables.” Even if the “vegetation to meat” article has never been written or thought about, the “meat was prohibited pre-flood” conclusion would still be there based on separate evidence and separate lines of reasoning.

Marvin wrote:

Conversely, dead meat fractionates and decomposes and is converted to plant food which is eaten and becomes vegetation, and eating vegetation was allowed, and eating vegetation was not eating animal flesh.

Tears of Oberon responds:

This is because “animal flesh” and “vegetation” are completely different concepts, and have different fundamental meanings.

Vegetation was allowed to be eaten.

Therefore, if what man had carried the identy as “vegetation” and not meat, then man could eat it.

Meat was not allowed to be eaten.

Therefore, if what man had carried the identity as “meat” and not vegetation, then man could not eat it.

Blood was not allowed to be eaten.

Therefore, if what man had carried the identity as “blood,” then man could not eat it.

It is that simple Marvin. It doesn’t require complex logic involving fractions or ultimate sources or conversion. You are creating all this unnecessary confusion and obfuscation yourself, and I have been trying my hardest to untie and clean all these knots and messes that you leave in your wake.

Marvin wrote:

From this theological perspective it can be said to eat a product that begins as material X that has been sufficiently fractionated and converted to a new material [Y] is not to eat material X but to eat of material Y. Hence a person could say they had abstained from X even though Y was made from X and they eat Y.

Tears of Oberon responds:

I state it more succinctly, but pretty much yeah.

To eat a product that begins as material X [=vegetation] that has been sufficiently fractionated and converted to a new material Y [=meat] is not to eat material X [=vegetation] but to eat of material Y [=meat]. Hence a person could say that they had abstained from X [=vegetation] even though Y [=meat] was made from X [=vegetation] and they eat Y [=meat].

That sounds reasonable to me. What isn’t it reasonable about it to you?

Marvin wrote:

Here are problems I see with this deduction from Watchtower theology:

Tears of Oberon responds:

*warms up another bag of popcorn*

Marvin continued:

Meat is not composed of fractionated vegetation. Fractions from vegetation are constituents that are dead in terms of being vegetation.

Tears of Oberon responds:

You haven’t actually defined what “vegetation” is yet, so how can you start talking about constituents (which you also haven’t defined yet) as being dead? If we are just using “fraction” in its general sense, then I could say that a stem [=constituent] from a leaf [=vegetation] is not really vegetation at all now couldn’t I? If I begin with a leaf [=vegetation] and cut it in half with a knife, then I end up with two fractions of a unit of whole vegetation [=constituents]. Could I really say that these two leaf halves are not really vegetation?

Marvin wrote:

In this form eating those fractions is eating vegetation; it is vegetable matter. We do it every day, and Adam could eat vegetable matter. To become meat a conversion of those fractions has to occur so that we arrive at a whole new composition that is no longer identifiable as vegetation.

Unlike vegetation, blood is supposedly prohibited as a food source.

Tears of Obeorn responds:

Weren’t all of your above ‘arguments’ dependent upon the assumption that vegetation was prohibited? Also, doesn’t your last line just show that your vegetable analogy isn’t really parallel to the blood issue at all?

Marvin wrote:

Fractions from blood are constituents that are dead in terms of being blood [paralleling vegetable fractions]. In this form eating those fractions is like eating dead pieces of blood; it is bloodetable matter.[“bloodetable” is a neologism for purpose of this discussion.]

Tears of Oberon responds:

Hmm…how hypocritical. Tears of Oberon distinctly remembers Marvin attacking him and rejecting his arguments in the past for use of “neologisms.” Do you need me to go and get that post for you? I still have it saved.

Additionally, where exactly in the Bible does it make the distinction between “dead pieces of blood” and “living pieces of blood”? How can blood be “dead” in the first place? You are really reaching for straws here Mr. Shilmer.

Additionally Additionally, what level of fractionation do you refer too? If I were to take a unit of whole blood and remove, say, nothing but the platelets (a very small fraction of whole blood), then according to you we would be able to use the 99% of blood left over? Is that 99% original volume substance minus the platelets (~1%) no longer blood according to you? You said it yourself:

“Fractions from blood are constituents that are dead in terms of being blood”

[Whole blood minus nothing but the platelets] is a fraction of whole blood

[Whole blood minus only the platelets] is acceptable to Marvin Shilmer.

Does that seem reasonable? I don’t know about you, but it sounds pretty goofy to me.

Marvin wrote:

At this point, there is no conversion of those blood fractions into a whole new composition. Those fractions remain readily identifiable as bloodetable matter.

Why am I sharing this information?

Tears of Oberon responds:

I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that you will tell us soon…

Marvin wrote:

Contrary to what readers here may think, I am not interested in proving myself right.

Tears of Oberon responds:

But isn’t that exclusively what you’ve been trying to do for the past 300 or so posts?...

Marvin wrote:

I want sound conclusions.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Correction: You want your preconceived conclusions to be right, and everyone else to be wrong. That is why you are here fighting vehemently for those preconceived conclusions.

Marvin wrote:

Sound conclusions are conclusions that result from logical arguments with proven premises. We can form logical conclusions by taking premises we accept as true and constructing logical conclusions with those premises. We can also construct logical arguments using hypothetical premises and then look to see if those premises are proven or at least substantially evidenced to make them a probability rather than a mere possibility.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Ok…that is all well and good, except that you have, you know, been failing at the “true” and “sound” part in all of your above arguments. You remind me heavily of a Marxist or a Utilitarian idealist, whose principles and standards seem wonderful on paper, except for the fact that they’ve never actually lived up to the full realization of them and probably never will.

Marvin wrote:

By sharing the above I am laying some new ground for examining concepts under which it is possible to say we abstain from something that clearly contains things originally part of that thing we say we abstain from.

If this line of thought overturns my current views about what Watchtower says of Witnesses and ‘abstaining from blood,’ so be it. Though that is yet to be seen, if it ends up that way I am fine with it because I am interested in sound conclusions and not proving myself right.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Unfortunately, it will never, ever end up that way. Mr. Shilmer would argue himself right into the grave if it meant not having to admit defeat. And with all of his ‘training,’ he indeed has the ability to argue to the grave if he feels like it, even if he is clearly wrong on an issue, e.g., perch not being fish (yeah, I went there again).

MARVIN 297

Marvin wrote:

Mistake

Tears of Oberon,

It occurs to me it may be important for you to hear me say I probably shared a bad conclusion in my post number 295.(Here: [link])

Tears of Oberon responds:

I’ve already pointed out quite few “mistakes” in that post. Perhaps you would like to add them to your list as well?

Marvin wrote:

I say this in relation to the dilemmas I suggested in that post.

If:

-- Taking from an approved food and converting it into something new does not make the new thing approved.

Tears of Oberon responds:

I believe that, based on the arguments you gave, the statement should be:

Taking from an approved food [=vegetation] and converting it into a new food [=meat] means that the new food [=meat] now falls under any pre-existing prohibitions on Ys in general [=meat in general].

Marvin continued:

Then:

-- Taking from a disapproved food and converting it into something new does not make the new thing disapproved.

Tears of Oberon responds:

I would rewrite this second statement as follows:

Taking from a disapproved food [=meat] and allowing it to be converted into something new [=vegetation] does not mean that the new thing [=vegetation] falls under the same pre-existing prohibition as the original disapproved food [=meat].

Would Marvin accept my two rewrites?

MARVIN 326

Marvin wrote:

Compound Term(s)

Tears of Oberon earlier writes:

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

And Tears of Oberon earlier writes:

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

I fail to understand the comparison Tears makes between those two statements?

-- I agree that “abstain from” is a compound term. So what?

Tears of Oberon responds:

I also agree with you that “abstain from” is a compound term, because the word “abstain” naturally pairs with “from” just as the letter “q” naturally pairs with the letter “u.”

Marvin wrote:

-- I also believe that “use from” is a compound term. So what?

Tears of Oberon responds:

Then you surely should be able to back up that claim Mr. Shilmer. I said, and you agreed, that “abstain from” is a compound term because the two words naturally pair together, and that it would be unusual to not see them together in a sentence. Now then, it is on you to show that the words “use” and “from” naturally pair together in the same manner that “abstain” and “from” pair together. If you cannot even do that, then why are you insisting that “use from” is a compound term, especially when I have already shown that it is not?

Marvin wrote:

-- I also know that “abstain from blood” is useless as a phrase without knowing WHAT blood it requires abstention from and WHAT abstention is required. So what?

Tears of Oberon responds:

“Abstain from blood” is a complete statement, and necessitates no further questions. What are we to do? We are to [abstain from] something. What are we to abstain from? We abstain from blood. It is that simple. All of the extra stuff you tack on is irrelevant.

Marvin wrote:

-- I also know that “use from blood” is useless as a phrase without known WHAT blood and WHAT use it speaks of. So what?

Tears of Oberon responds:

The phrase does not require knowing what type of blood or the type of use. Those things are irrelevant.

“Use from Y” is an incomplete statement. It structurally and grammatically necessitates the question: use what from Y?

“Use from Y” is equivalent to “use something from Y,” or “use X from Y.” They are all three the same thing.

Marvin wrote:

I already addressed these remarks from Tears of Oberon and his current blog entry ignores that reply.—[link]

Tears of Oberon responds:

I already covered all of that in my blog, and I am covering it again here. Go read.

http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2010/02/full-abstention-argument.html

Marvin wrote:

First, it appears to me that Tears of Oberon fails to prove a relevant distinction between the two statements in terms of whether they are both single compound terms or only one is a single compound term,

Tears of Oberon responds:

No, it is just that you are ignoring everything that I write and are replacing it with strawmen. I proved myself more than sufficiently. Go read.

http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2010/02/full-abstention-argument.html

Marvin wrote:

and secondly it appears to me that Tears of Oberon makes a distinction of one of the above statements that he does not recognize an equivalence to in the other statement, and it appears this is for no reason other than preference.

Tears of Oberon wrote:

I recognize a distinction between the separate terms “use” and “from,” and the compound single term “abstain from” because they are not the same thing.

[abstain from] is contrary to [use]

[abstain from] from is contrary to [use] from

http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2010/02/full-abstention-argument.html

Go read.

Tears of Oberon

SHILMER 327

Marvin wrote:

Compound Term(s)--2

Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:

The phrase, "I abstain from" implies the question: abstain from what? Marvin Shilmer proved that he understood this implied question by supplying the answer himself: blood.

-- I abstain from blood [=X]

Reduces to:

--[abstain from] X

where [abstain from] is a single compound term.

The phrase, "I use from" implies two questions: use what from what?

To use FROM blood implies the question: use WHAT from blood? There is a second variable in that statement, which I simply called Y.

-- I use minor fractions from blood

Reduces to:

-- I use X from Y

What part of this do you not get Mr. Shilmer?

Marvin replied:

The “part” I do not “get” is the distinction you assert above toward one phrase as though the same distinction is not true of both phrases.

“Abstain from” and “use from” are equal in conceptual terms.

Tears of Oberon responds:

No…they are not. God read my blog again.

http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2010/02/full-abstention-argument.html

“Abstain from” is contrary to “use”

“Abstain from X” is contrary to “use X”

Abstain from (Y from X) is contrary to use (Y from X)

Marvin wrote:

“Abstain from blood” and “use from blood” are equal in conceptual terms.

No they are not.

“Abstain from X” is NOT equal in conceptual terms to “use Y from X”

That would be the same as trying to say that:

“Abstain from X” is equal to “abstain from Y from X”

The two are different Mr. Shilmer. On the left side, entity X is being directly referred to. On the right side, entity Y is being directly referred to, with X being some arbitrary source for Y at some arbitrary distance away from Y.

Marvin wrote:

“Abstain from blood” and “use from blood” are equal in terms of needing more information if something other is being said that the face value of either sentence, both of which are extremely broad.

Tears of Oberon responds:

No, they are not equal. “Abstain from blood,” tells you everything you need to know. If there is blood, then abstain from it. “Use from blood” is an incomplete statement, because the “from” points to some direct or indirect source, but it does not specify exactly WHAT is being used from that either direct or indirect source.

“Use from blood” is equal to “use something from blood,” where the “something” is the thing that is actually being used, and is not necessarily the blood.

Marvin wrote:

As “abstain from blood”:

-- Does not convey WHAT blood it is speaking to and it does not convey WHAT abstention it is speaking of,

Tears of Oberon responds:

I never said anything about what type of blood or what type of abstention. What you are going on about is completely irrelevant.

Marvin wrote:

So too “use from blood”:

-- Does not convey WHAT is used from blood or WHAT blood is used from.

Tears of Oberon responds:

As I already stated in Oberon 260:

“Just because you do not provide an answer to the implied question does not mean that it just magically goes away. If there is no supplied answer, then it should remain a blank (filled in with a place-holding syntatic substituend, i.e. a variable) until you do supply an answer.”

“Use from” requires this blank in front of the word “from” to be acknowledged. The term “abstain from” DOES NOT require any blank to be acknowledged before the word “from.” That is why they are different.

As for “what blood is used from,” it is irrelevant to the issue of grammatically and structurally necessitated blanks in front of the word “from.”

Marvin wrote:

If you would argue that “use from” is not a single compound term as applied to “blood” because it does not convey WHAT is used from blood or WHAT blood is used from,

Tears of Oberon responds:

If I may channel Dora the Explorer for a second: Marvin no strawmen! Marvin no strawmen! Marvin no strawmen!! I said nothing about “what blood is used from.” That question isn’t necessitated by the structure and grammar like “use what from blood” is.

Marvin wrote:

THEN you are forced to conclude that “abstain from” is not a single compound term as applied to “blood” because it does not convey WHAT blood it is speaking to and it does not convey WHAT abstention it is speaking of. But you assert that “abstain from” is a single compound term in respect to “blood,” and I agree with that. I also assert that the term “use from” is a single compound term in respect to “blood,” but you assert this is false. Yet the basis for that latter assertion of yours is contrary to what we know equally of the phrase “abstain from” said in respect to “blood”. In essence, you are not applying the same standard of distinction from one phrase to the next.

Tears of Oberon wrote:

What, that is all just lovely and beautiful Mr. Shilmer. Too bad it has nothing to do with anything that I actually said. Please re-read my post, and maybe you will get a clue.

Marvin wrote:

Because the distinction you make above toward one phrase is equally apparent of the other phrase, then I fail to see correctness in the distinction you assert.

Tears of Oberon wrote:

It is only “equally apparent” to you, but nobody else. As I have already stated:

[abstain from] means [do not use]

[abstain from] from means [do not use] from.

It is that simple.

SHILMER 328

Marvin wrote:

A Crux

Tears of Oberon responds:

This should be entertaining.

Marvin continued:

Tears of Oberon earlier writes at this blog:

To use blood for food is contrary to abstaining from blood for food

Tears assert the above as a true proposition. Take a close, close look at it:

We have to actions depicted:

-- 1. To use blood for food.

-- 2. To abstain from blood for food.

Why does Tears have the preposition “from” in his second statement but omit it in his first statement?

Tears of Oberon responds:

That is strange question to ask now isn’t it, especially considering that you already provided the answer earlier:

“I agree that “abstain from” is a compound term.”—Marvin Shilmer post 326

I include the word “from” because it is grammatically necessary. It would be improper to write:

To abstain blood for food.

To be proper, we combine the word “abstain” with the word “from,” thus creating our compound term:

To [abstain from] blood for food.

On the other hand, nothing extra is necessitated by the phrase

To use blood for food.

It is a complete and grammatically correct statement. You could add the unnecessary term “from,” but that would change the fundamental meaning of the statement (unlike with adding “from” to “abstain”). Adding a “from” would change the term “blood” to some either indirect or direct source, and would introduce some new variable as the entity which is actually being used from that either indirect or direct source.

Marvin wrote:

We cannot ignore the preposition “from” because it is codified in the very biblical statement at issue, which reads “abstain from blood”. Hence Tears is obligated to use the term. But why not use the term equally?

Tears of Oberon responds:

Because as I already stated, the term “from” is grammatically necessitated in one phrase and is not grammatically necessitated in the other.

Marvin wrote:

Earlier Tears of Oberon wrote:

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

Why does Tears of Oberon depart from his own criterion in his succinct proposition above?

Tears of Oberon responds:

You are confused Marvin. I have not departed from anything that I have said. I stated, clearly and unequivocally that YOUR premise

To [abstain from] means to [not use] + [from]

is imbalanced, because the left side contains one term and the right side contains two terms. If you wish to balance your statement, then you would need to add a term to the left side:

To [abstain from] + [from] means to [not use] + [from]

Or if you wish to use only one term on each side, then you must use the form:

To [abstain from] means to [not use]

It is simple.

Marvin wrote:

Though a single premise can be whatever we want it to be, when we make statements said to be at odds we have a duty to compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

Tears of Oberon responds:

And yet Marvin has been comparing apples to oranges the entire time…

Marvin wrote:

In the disputed premise of “To use from is contrary to abstain from” we have two actions depicted:

In abstract form:

-- 1. To use from.

-- 2. To abstain from.

Tears of Oberon responds:

In reduced form:

1. To use X from Y

2. To abstain from Y

One is an apple, one is an orange…

Marvin writes:

In subject form we have these to actions depicted:

-- 1. To use from blood.

-- 2. To abstain from blood.

Tears of Oberon responds:

When we substitute in for our variables, we get:

1. To use (SOMETHING) from blood.

2. To abstain from blood.

Apples and oranges…

Marvin wrote:

In longer subject form in the abstract we have:

-- 1. To use from blood for X.

-- 2. To abstain from blood for X.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Now in addition to his apples and oranges, Mr. Shilmer has tossed in a mango for good measure. He hasn’t addressed the problem yet—all that he is doing is tacking on more and more irrelevant and unrelated extras, i.e., “for Y.” His argument is now:

1. To use Y from blood [=X] for Y.

2. To [abstain from] blood [=X] for Y.

He is just reiterating in item number one what is already implied by the grammar. His extra “for Y” is superfluous. This does, however, indicate that Mr. Shilmer understands that “use from” implies more than just one variable (unlike “abstain from”). He is just terribly confused as to where that variable actually goes.

Marvin wrote:

In longer subject for in more specific terms we have:

-- 1. To use from blood for food.

-- 2. To abstain from blood for food.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Once again, the “for food” part that Marvin tacked on is irrelevant and should be stricken from the argument completely. I still haven’t figured out why he feels the need to hang onto it. Other than that, it is still the same old invalid tautology that I have been refuting over and over again for the past 300 posts.

Marvin wrote:

In each case we have two actions said to be at odds, but the actions are treated on equal terms.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Your apples and oranges and mangos sure don’t look very equal from my vantage point. Maybe if you just keep throwing more and more random fruit into the mix, you will confuse your opponent enough to make them simply give up in frustration?

Marvin wrote:

This is how the original premise of dispute presents the two actions that it asserts are at odds.

Where is the balance that Tears earlier asserted the necessity of?

Tears of Oberon responds:

Where is the balance? That is a very good question Marvin. I don’t have a clue where the balance in your arguments ran off too, but it sure isn’t there now.

Marvin wrote:

If we balance the two actions proposed by Tears we have the very same premise I have asserted:

-- To use FROM blood for food is contrary to abstaining FROM blood for food.

Tears of Oberon responds:

*goes and buys a new desk to bang head on*

Your capitalization is very telling Marvin. Have you already forgotten (or expected us to have forgotten) what you stated in post 326?

“I agree that “abstain from” is a compound term.”—Marvin Shilmer post 326

And yet for some reason, Marvin completely throws that out the window when writing his new premise. He emphasizes the “from” as if it were a completely separate term than “abstain.” He also completely ignores his action verbs. In reality, his statement should read:

To [USE] [FROM] blood for food is contrary to [ABSTAINING FROM] blood for food.

And all of a sudden he no longer has any balance (he never had balance in the first place).

Marvin wrote:

That proposition is using terms to express a tautology that says,

-- To not abstain FROM blood is contrary to abstaining FROM blood.

Tears of Oberon responds:

And once again, Mr. Shilmer is either confused or forgetful. He has thrown out what he wrote in post 326 yet again, and is treating the word “from” as if it were separate from the word “abstain.” The statement should actually read:

To not ABSTAIN FROM blood is contrary to ABSTAINING FROM blood.

Or in abstract form:

To not ABSTAIN FROM X is contrary to ABSTAINING FROM X.

Marvin wrote:

Does Tears of Oberon agree or disagree with this premise?

Tears of Oberon responds:

Why shouldn’t I agree? It is balanced with one term on each side (unlike your other statements.)

Marvin wrote:

If yes, then let him say yes.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Yes.

Happy now? Although, I don’t have a clue what it accomplishes for you—it is the same thing that I have been saying from the beginning.

SHILMER 329

Marvin wrote:

Honest or Dishonest, Again

I presented the following proposition for Tears of Oberon’s review and comment as to whether the statement was honest or dishonest:

Note [1]. a, b, c and d represent red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma.

Tears of Oberon responded earlier by writing:

First of all, eat what result? You don’t ever bother to specify that Mr. Shilmer, and I can’t exactly respond to you until you do specify.

Marvin continued:

Regarding Tears latter statement of red cells et al, the proposition above explicitly states that none of the forms you object to as carrying “blood-ness” are present in the result.[I.e., none of a, b, c or d as formed elements remain intact.] Hence I do not understand your objection on that point.

Tears of Oberon responds:

I apologize then. I focused in too much on your note and didn’t notice the statement in the main paragraph contrary to the note.

Marvin wrote:

Regarding your initial objection above, the “result” is the remains of the fractionation, and that remains 1] DOES NOT include any of the formed elements of red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma and that 2] all four of those for elements of red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma are NOT TOGETHER as one item.

With these clarifications in mind, I have restated a new proposition as:

-- "We pay to have blood that is poured out from an animal for it to be fractioned making sure that the components of a, b, c, and d[1] are not all left together and that none of those components remain intact so we can eat the result, and we abstain from blood.”

Note [1]. a, b, c and d represent red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma.

Is the statement above honest or dishonest?

Tears of Oberon responds:

Once again, you fail to actually specify exactly WHAT you are eating. If you are eating everything all together, then you are eating blood, because all of any composite is the composite itself. We’ve never argued against that Mr. Shilmer. However, if you are eating some isolated fraction which no longer retains its identity as blood, then no you are not eating blood—you are eating something that is not blood, and have thus [abstained from] blood, i.e., [not eaten] blood.

[Abstain from] in this context means [not eat]. Mr. Shilmer gets so caught up in matching words that he forgets about MEANING. Both sides do not have to contain the word “from” to have the same MEANING.

MARVIN 330

No response merited

MARVIN 331

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:

You are actually Mr. Randy Jensen, and you work in Auburn Alabama (that isn’t exactly a secret…); therefore, it is likely that you are using an old Alabama DPA.

Oh. That chestnut. I didn’t realize you ate from the tree of gossip. If I am who you say I am then I am not me, I am someone else. Last I checked, I am me and not someone else.

By the way, I do confess to having DPA documents and instructions issued to congregations in the state of Alabama, along with the same documents issued in more than twenty other states.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Yes, we know that you are using a pseudonym because you want to hide your real identity ‘Marvin.’ And as such, we know that you will deny and lie about who you really are. Even admitting one single time that you are really Jensen would be devastating for you, because that one single admission can be saved and used to connect you to all these years worth of apostate speech.

But we are also not idiots around here. We can read the Jenson letters (written from a city only 36 miles from Auburn), see the same quibbling and ridiculous reasoning that you use, and make the connection. We can see your IP address, and trace you back to your place of employment, and then even get your telephone number and address if we wish.

Randy Jensen Leonard Peterson & Company, Inc. PO Box 2277 Auburn AL 36831 334-821-6832 randy@lpco.com

So even though you cannot say so yourself, you can rest assured that we know who you are Mr. ‘Shilmer.’

MARVIN 335

No response merited

MARVIN 338

No response merited

MARIN 340

No response merited

MARVIN 342

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:

It appears to Tears of Oberon (and everyone else who can read) that you hold that eating bacon IS NOT violating the command to “not eat pig,” because according to you,“no single component” can ever hold equivalence with the whole.

As I already said, to know if Auldsoul agrees or disagrees with my is best resolve by asking Auldsoul directly to answer that question, that is since he is available to ask.

As for my view,

My view is that if a person eats bacon he is eating pork. In that respect it would be absurd to say to eat bacon is not to eat pig. But “pig” can refer to “a pig” or “pork”.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Pigs are a genus of even-toed ungulates within the family Suidae.

Pork is the culinary name for meat from the domestic pig (Sus domesticus). The word pork denotes specifically the fresh meat of the pig, but it is often mistakenly used as an all-inclusive term which includes cured, smoked, or processed meats (ham, bacon, prosciutto, etc.)

Both have very distinct and concrete meanings. Pig DOES NOT share the same meaning as pork. Pork is a constituent FROM pig; and according to you, no single constituent of a composite can ever equal the composite itself. And yet, your own innate common sense tells you this is absurd, because how can somebody who eats bacon say that they have abstained from pig? It is for the same reason that Al Kidd presented, and that we have been using for 1000s of posts now: “Pig” has not yet decomposed enough at the stage “bacon” to lose its “pig-ness.” Therefore, we as rational persons hold that to eat bacon is not to abstain from pig.

Similarly, we as rational persons hold that “blood” has not yet decomposed enough at the stage “red blood cell” to lose its “blood-ness.” Therefore, our common sense holds us to the view that a person who has eaten red blood cells has not abstained from blood.

Marvin wrote:

Though eating bacon is eating pig (pork) it is not eating “a pig”. “A pig” is more than any single member of “a pig”. “Pork” is anything from a pig.

Every dictionary on the face of the planet will disagree with you Marvin. “Pig” is simply not “pork” in meaning. This is almost as bad as your response to my perch tautology, wherein you tried to argue that just because Jim Bob down the street called his bait fishing insects “perch” instead of the proper “perch bugs,” then it could be used to refute the tautology. Try a little harder please.

Marvin wrote:

No matter how you look at it, though, to eat anything from a pig is contrary to abstaining from a pig.

Tears of Oberon responds:

And yet again (for the 68^th time?) you completely ignore everything that I have written and refuted regarding the phrase “eat from.”

To eat anything [=Y] from source pig [=X] is contrary to abstaining from anything [=Y] from source pig [=X].

Just because you eat something [=Y], does not mean that you have eaten source X.

Just because you eat oil [=Y] does not meant that you have eaten the source of the oil [=dinosaurs/ancient plant life].

MARVIN 343

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:

Auldsoul actually agrees with Watchtower and myself however, because something such as bacon has not decomposed enough to lose its primary identification with the term “pig,” just as the major formed cells known as blood platelets have not decomposed enough to lose their identification with the term “blood.” In my eyes, bacon and platelets both meet the as of yet not published Criteria of Equivalence.

Marvin replied:

“Decomposed enough” becomes a self-serving term if it is plied to a preferential end rather than on a consistent, measurable and objective basis. In particular, it will be very interesting to see how you deal with cryoprecipitate in this notion of “decomposed enough”.

Tears of Oberon responds:

And yet, both you and Auldsoul agree with me on this issue. You both agree with me that:

Pig has not decomposed enough at stage “bacon” to lose its pig-ness. Thus, bacon meets the Criteria for Equivalence in my argument, i.e., Y=X. Therefore, to eat bacon is not to abstain from pig. That is a rational and reasonable conclusion.

Marvin wrote:

…And, in particular, whether it is honest to say Witnesses abstain from blood when in fact they use from the donated and stored blood supply each and every day of the week by paying others to extract and deliver all sorts of stuff from that blood to them, for them and into them.

Tears of Oberon responds:

And again, you fall back on the same exactly invalid argument that you have been using the entire time. The real argument is:

Is it honest to say that Witnesses abstain from blood even though they use non-blood entities, i.e., entities devoid of their “blood-ness,” from the ultimate source blood?

The answer, in harmony with everything I have been saying up to this point is: YES.

Marvin wrote:

For “decomposed enough” to have relevancy to this discussion the term has to substantiate the distinctions made in Watchtower’s blood doctrine between constituents from blood, beyond a circular argument of course.

Tears of Oberon responds:

Neither you nor Auldsoul bother to substantiate it when you use your common sense to determine that “Pig” at decomposition stage “bacon” has not yet lost its “pig-ness,” and would thus still violate the command to “abstain from pig” by consumption.

MARVIN 344

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon,

Do you believe that if a person eats bacon that they are eating pig?

How do you answer that question?

Tears of Oberon responds:

I do not believe that “pig” and “bacon” share the same meaning, but I do believe that “bacon” is a major enough component of “pig” to still maintain its “pig-ness.” Thus, eating the major constituent “bacon” would violate the command to not eat pig.

MARVIN 345

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon wrote:

So is eating a strip of bacon eating pig?

If so, what is the bacon-to-pig equivalence in relation to blood?

Tears of Oberon responds:

Bacon is to pig as red blood cells are to blood.

Marvin wrote:

Bacon is a fraction of meat from a pig and it is not a whole of any organ of pig. Often it contains, for example, a minor fraction of a much larger organ known as skin. It also contains a minor fraction from a much larger organ known as muscle. It also contains a minor fraction of a much larger tissue known as fat. It also contains a minor amount of whole blood.

Tears of Oberon responds:

So then, you DO NOT think that eating bacon is violating the command to not eat pig? You are just hopping back and forth across the position fence today aren’t you?

MARVIN 346

Marvin wrote:

Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:

Use blood as a resource for what? Without an answer to this question, then his conclusion does not follow his premises and is invalid. This is my perspective.

As a resource for food.

Hence: If the Apostolic Decree to abstain from blood [and things strangled] as a source from which to extract food to eat is a requirement to abstain from using blood as a resource, then, based on Watchtower teaching equating transfusing blood with eating blood, it is false to say Witnesses abstain from blood. This is my perspective.

Tears of Oberon responds:

The Apostolic Decree doesn’t say “from blood as a source from which to extract food” Marvin…you tacked on every bit of that yourself!

The Apostolic Decree means: do not eat blood, whether on its own or entombed within a carcass [=strangled things].

[Do not eat] blood is equivalent with [abstain from] blood in that context. The command is refering to blood as that which is directly used, and not as the ultimate source of something else. There are no indirect “sources” or “recources” involved (even though Marvin would like to imagine that there are).

It is not that difficult to understand—it is just Marvin’s mangling and muddying of the phrasing that makes it difficult. That is my perspective.

Jehovah's Witness Research Blog

Blog Archive

Search This Blog

Monday, February 22, 2010

ABSTENTION RAW DEBATE PART II

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me