Marvin wrote:
Fences
Tears of Oberon earlier writes:
On one hand, you refuse to acknowledge the obvious in your own premise, i.e., that you are really talking about using minor fractions from blood. On the other hand, you state that you actually are talking about “THINGS” from blood. You are trying to be on both sides of the fence at once!
Marvin continues:
No. I am not trying to be on both sides of any fence. Because I admit Witnesses use “things” from blood does not change the premise of dispute. Of course Witnesses use things from blood. In fact they use a lot of things from blood. But whether this is an act contrary to abstaining from blood is the issue. It would be circular for me to simply say it is contrary to abstaining from blood; hence the need for a logical argument that is non-circular.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I am amazing that you can actually sit there and type that, but then turn right back around and accuse me of strawmen when I say that your argument is the exact same thing!
Marvin wrote:
-- Using [things] from blood is contrary to abstaining from blood
-- IF
-- Not use = abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
Using [things] from blood is contrary to abstaining from blood
IF AND ONLY IF
Things = blood
Marvin wrote:
I do not argue that “using things from blood” is contrary to “abstain from blood” as premise in an argument. I employ the premise of “not use = abstain” as a conclusion that supports a CONCLUSION that “using things from blood” is contrary to “abstain from blood”.
You already admitted with my premise that the concept “use” is contrary to the concept “abstain.”
Tears of Oberon responds:
Speaking of terms in a conceptual sense doesn’t require the same rules of English grammar that using the same terms in raw language and with other entities involved requires.
Conceptual:
The concept of “use” is contrary to the concept of “abstain”
Real World:
Using X is contrary to [abstaining FROM] X.
When spoken of purely in conceptual terms, the word “from” following “abstain” is not grammatically required. But once the term stops being a mere concept and is brought into the real world and is applied to real entities, then it transforms into the compound term “abstain from.” The term “use” requires no such grammatical considerations.
Marvin’s fallacy lies in exploiting these different grammatical requirements by using “abstain” as a conceptual term within a real world sentence structure; thus, he can conveniently leave off the “from” and create an illusion of equivalence between “use from” and “abstain from.”
MARVIN 543
Marvin wrote:
Context – Not use = abstain
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
The problem here is that Marvin takes the word “use” out of the abstract, conceptual world and makes it a definite action by virtue of the word “to.” However, Marvin does not bother to take “abstain” out of the abstract, conceptual world in like manner.
Marvin replied:
That statement is just as dumb now as it was when you wrote it. Here is what your statement addressed:
-- to use is not to abstain
Here is it again:
-- TO use is not TO abstain.
What I did with “use” I did with “abstain”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
You still haven’t got it have you? Your whole ‘strategy’ is to reduce the words “use” and “abstain” to a one-to-one word meaning equivalence. That works with conceptual language, but it DOES NOT work in the real world!
TO use [things] is not to abstain FROM [things].
TO use [things] FROM [some source] is not to abstain from [things] FROM [some source]
The English language is not that difficult to figure out Marvin.
Marvin wrote:
Earlier you wrote agreement with the following proposition:
-- The abstract concept “use” is contrary to the abstract concept “abstain”
Tears of Oberon wrote:
The CONCEPTS are contrary yes.
Marvin wrote:
If:
-- Use [is contrary to] abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
The concept “use” [is contrary to] the concept “abstain”
Marvin wrote:
-- Use =/= abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
The concept “use” =/= the concept “abstain”
Marvin wrote:
Then:
-- Not use [is to] abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
And he has just made the jump to the real world; thus, the concept of abstain becomes “abstain from” when applied to real world entities.
Not use X [is to] abstain FROM X
Marvin wrote:
-- Not use = abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
Not use X = abstain FROM X
Marvin wrote:
Then:
-- Not use from [is to] abstain from
Tears of Oberon responds:
Once again, he is trying to create a one-to-one word equivalence between terms AS THEY ARE USED WHEN APPLIED TO REAL ENTITIES. The one-to-one word equivalence only applies when neither of the terms are applied to any real entities, i.e., they are used only in a conceptual sense.
Not use X from Y [is to] abstain from X FROM Y
Marvin wrote:
-- Not use from = abstain from
Tears of Oberon responds:
(Not use) from = (abstain from) from
Marvin wrote:
Then:
-- Use from [is contrary to] abstain from
Tears of Oberon responds:
Use from [is contrary to] abstain from from.
Using things from blood [is contrary to] abstaining from things from blood.
Marvin wrote:
-- Use from =/= abstain from
Tears of Oberon responds:
I agree with the above.
[use] from =/= [abstain from] from
[use X] [from Y] =/= [abstain from X] [from Y]
Marvin wrote:
You said it yourself:
-- The abstract concept “use” is contrary to the abstract concept “abstain”
Tears of Oberon wrote:
The emphasis is on the word “concept,” not “abstract.” When I use the phrase “abstract form” in my responses, I am referring primarily to arguments containing variables.
MARVIN 544
Marvin wrote:
Taile of Two Statements:
Tears of Oberon writes:
--The abstract concept “use” is contrary to the abstract concept “abstain.”
--[Use] is contrary to [abstain from]
Both those statements are abstract. I agree with both.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Only one of those statements is stated in purely conceptual terms. I also agree with both.
MARVIN 545
Marvin wrote:
Ignored propositions
Earlier I proposed that “eat something from” is equivalent to “use from” UNLESS it is possible to “eat something FROM X” WITHOUT “using from X” or unless it is possible to “use something from X” without “using X”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
And your proposal still makes no sense whatsoever. You cannot just throw out random conditions and have them become automatically valid merely because your name is Marvin Shilmer.
Eat [something] from X = use [something] from X
If your TYPE of use is “eating,” and if your TYPE of abstention is “not eating, then:
Eat X = use X
Not eat X = abstain from X
What happened to all that talk about the TYPE of use and abstention being necessary Marvin?
Addtionally, it IS possible to eat [something] FROM X without using [X], but that has no bearing whatsoever on whether eat = use.
Tears of Oberon ate “gasoline” from source “dinosaur.”
Tears of Oberon did not eat “dinosaur.”
Tears of Oberon did not use “dinosaur.”
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon ignores this language and addresses his same old strawman instead.
Tears of Oberon responds:
If it’s true, then I have no choice but to keep saying it, even you get tired of hearing it.
Marvin wrote:
Hint: Address what is ACTUALLY stated.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Hint: LISTEN to what is actually said.
Marvin wrote:
Can I “eat something FROM blood” WITHOUT “using blood” or “using from blood”?
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Counter Question: Can I “eat something FROM blood” WITHOUT eating blood? Yes or No?
Your answer is: _______
Marvin wrote:
Either directly or indirectly by means of an agent, blood has to be “used” or “used from” to “eat something from blood.” If you see how it is possible otherwise, please DO TELL.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
After you answer my simple question Marvin:
Can I “eat something FROM blood” WITHOUT eating blood? Yes or No?
Your answer is: _______
MARVIN 546
Marvin wrote:
Wow Factor
I proposed the following and asked if Tears of Oberon agreed or disagreed:
-- not use = abstain [“not” is only an on-off switch, an operator]
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
No……..[rest of answer ignored by Marvin]
Marvin replied to a single word of my answer:
That explains a great deal.
Tears of Oberon responds:
It also explains a great deal when you ignore everything else I said after the word no. Go read.
Marvin wrote:
Earlier you wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
The abstract concept “use” is contrary to the abstract concept “abstain.”
Marvin wrote:
Now you contradict yourself by saying “not use = abstain” is in abstract terms a false statement.
Tears of Oberon responds:
You miss the point Marvin.
The concept of “not using” is contrary to the concept of “abstention.”
That is stated in conceptual terms, and is not applied to any real entity.
To not use X is contrary to abstain FROM X
That is stated in real world terms, and is applied to the real entity X.
Marvin wrote:
In ordinary terms to “not use” is to “abstain”.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Try using that ‘ordinary’ sense in a sentence Marvin, and give me the chance to laugh at you squirm.
In real world terms, “not using X” is to “abstaining FROM X.” Get real Marvin.
MARVIN 547
Marvin wrote:’
Tears of Oberon wrote:
In completely abstract terms:
-- not use = abstain FROM using
Tears of Oberon responds:
I really, really don’t want to call you out as intentionally misrepresenting my statements Marvin, but you make it difficult on me when you mangle such simple statements. You intentionally leave off the full comment and mislead the readers into thinking that I applied the words “abstract” to the first line. Here are my full comments:
Tears of Oberon earlier responded to Marvin post 533:
No. In completely abstract terms:
not use = abstain FROM using
not use X = abstain from using X
(-)QX = (-)QX
1 = 1
The completely abstract form referred to the line at the END of the PROCESS: (-)QX = (-)QX. I use the term “abstract” to indicate the presence of variables, not conceptual language!
Marvin wrote:
Earlier Tears of Oberon wrote:
The abstract concept “use” is contrary to the abstract concept “abstain.”
Marvin replied:
I agree that as an abstract statement “not using” is to “abstain from using” is a valid statement.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
I never said that was an abstract statement!
Marvin wrote:
I ALSO agree that as an abstract statement the concept “use is contrary to abstain” is a valid statement.
Tears of Oberon responds:
That isn’t an abstract statement, it is a CONCEPTUAL statement. I use “abstract” to refer to the presence of variables.
Marvin wrote:
Because both these are true then Tears of Oberon agrees that:
-- use =/= abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
As a purely conceptual premise yes. But if you wish to apply that premise to ANYTHING existing the REAL WORLD, then “abstain” becomes “abstain FROM,” and Marvin’s absurd one-to-one word equivalence flies away.
Marvin wrote:
That concept is the bedrock of the premise:
-- use from [is contrary to] abstain from
Tears of Oberon responds:
Those are two different types of premises Marvin! The valid premise is:
Use X from Y [is contrary to] abstain from X from Y!
Marvin wrote:
Tears is talking in circles.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
And Marvin could argue that a circle is really a square (and probably convince half of this forum…)
MARVIN 548
Marvin wrote:
Earlier I presented the following propositions to Tears of Oberon with a question:
Use = not abstain
Not use = abstain
Use =/= abstain
Agree or disagree?
This asks for a STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER.
If Tears of Oberon AGREES then let him say he AGREES.
If Tears of Oberon DISAGREE that him say he DISAGREES.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I ANSWERED you already Marvin. It is not my fault if you do have the capacity to interpret whether or not those answers speak agreement or disagreement! Once again, respectively:
Use = not abstain from use
Q = (-)(-)Q
Q = Q
Not use = abstain from use
(-)Q = (-)Q
Q = Q
Use =/= abstain from use
Q =/= (-)Q
Those statements I agree with.
MARVIN 549
Marvin wrote:
Earlier I proposed the following with a question:
-- Use is contrary to refrain. Agree or disagree?
Tears of Oberon responded earlier by writing:
In conceptual, abstract terms yes.
Marvin wrote:
If in abstract terms
-- use [is contrary to] refrain
Tears of Oberon responds:
That is not in abstract terms. Abstract terms would involve variables. Conceptual terms involves merely the idea of the terms without applying them to any real entities.
Marvin wrote:
Then
In abstract terms:
-- use from [is contrary to] refrain from
Agree or disagree?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Disagree.
1. That is not abstract form
2. That is not in purely conceptual terms.
If you want to apply those terms to real entities, then you need one of the following:
Use X [is contrary to] refrain FROM X
Use X FROM Y [is contrary to] refrain from X FROM Y.
MARVIN 550
Marvin wrote:
Imbalance
Tears AGREES with the abstract statement of:
-- use [is contrary to] refrain
Tears of Oberon responds:
That isn’t an abstract statement—it has no variables.
Marvin wrote:
Then Tears of Oberon DISAGREES with the abstract statement of:
-- use from [is contrary to] refrain from
Tears of Oberon responds:
That is neither abstract nor conceptual. As a statement with terms being applied to real entities, it is grammatically wrong.
Use X from Y [is contrary to] refrain from X from Y
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon then offers the following construction as an alternate:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
(Use) X from is contrary to (refrain from) X from
Marvin continued:
--(Use) X from is contrary to (refrain from) X from
Reduces to:
-- use from [is contrary to] refrain from from
Tears of Oberon responds:
If “use X from” reduces to “use from,” then “use from” can be expanded to “use X from.” However, Marvin Shilmer has repeatedly called the expanded form a “strawman.” Remember all that whining about:
“MY ARGUMENT DOESN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT IS USED!!!”—paraphrasing Marvin
Well now, according to Marvin Shilmer himself, it DOES say something about what is used. What is used is X, according to Marvin Shilmer.
Marvin wrote:
Now take a look at the two statements Tears of Oberon agrees with:
-- use [is contrary to] refrain
Tears of Oberon responds:
If being used in purely conceptual terms, then yes I agree. If being used in real terms and in reference to real entities, then the form:
Use X [is contrary to] refrain FROM
Is proper.
Marvin wrote:
-- use from [is contrary to] refrain from from
Tears of Oberon responds:
In terms of what you have already agreed with, my statement makes perfect sense—it is just that I have turned the variables “off” just like you have turned your variables “off.”
Use X from Y [is contrary to] refrain from X from Y
Marvin wrote:
Now who is imbalanced?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Apparently you?
MARVIN 551
Marvin wrote:
Do or Stop
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
The points from the article on my blog still stand unaddressed and unrefuted. (link)
Marvin replied:
What points?
Tears of Oberon responds:
What points?! That is a very telling reply Marvin!
Marvin wrote:
Either Watchtower provides for Witnesses to “accept all minor fractions” from blood or is does not. WHICH IS IT?
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Try reading the actual article.
Marvin wrote:
Either “accept all minor fractions” means “accept all fractions derived from any primary component of blood” or it does not. WHICH IS IT?
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Try reading the article.
Marvin wrote:
Either the “accept all minor fractions” has a face value or it does not. WHICH IS IT?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Try reading the article.
Marvin wrote:
Your pitiful blog article never addresses these in a straightforward manner.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Opinions are like noses…
Marvin wrote:
Of course the DPA document explains that “all minor fractions” is expressed in a context that does not accept the whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma. That is,“all minor fractions” refers to blood fractions that are not whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma. I have not said otherwise. So what is your point by restating that.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Thank you for agreeing with the main point of my blog article Marvin. I also agree that the DPA does not allow for all conceivable fractions from a unit of blood to be taken at once. You see, we can agree on things every once and awhile.
Marvin wrote:
Does “all minor fractions” have a face value or not? If it has a face value that WHAT IS that face value, in the CONTEXT of the DPA?
Tears of Oberon responds:
The statement is made within a qualifying context, and this qualifying context is explained within the article. Go read.
Marvin wrote:
Say something or else stop saying you say something. Make a point or stop.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I’ve been saying things for the past 500 posts! Listen to something or else stop saying you are hearing me! Acknowledge a point or stop.
Tears of Oberon
MARVIN 553
Tears of Oberon responds with a 2009 blog entry:
The “paying someone to steal” illustration has no resemblance to the issue of accepting minor fractions of blood. In the opposer’s argument, the illegal “offense” takes place at the moment the hired hand takes the “property.” Thus, the ALREADY hot property being accepted willingly by the employer is viewed as stealing by extension. With regards the blood issue however, the blood does not become “hot” the moment it is removed from the body or handled. The opposer is mixing up the order of events in his illustration for the purpose of deceiving his readers. To break this down into a more visual form, please notice the following flow outlines that I have put together:
Opposer’s Non-Parallel Illustration:
1. Man one hires man two to [steal a car]
2. Man two steals a car (offense happens here, at the beginning)
3. Man two becomes guilty of theft the moment he gets behind the wheel of the car and drives away.
4. The car becomes “hot” property the moment man two gets behind the wheel and drives away.
5. Man two gives the “hot” property to man one.
6. Man one becomes guilty of knowingly taking hot property.
A Truly Parallel Illustration:
1. Man two buys a car from a dealer (nothing illegal about it)
2. Man one needs a new nut for his own car’s wheel.
3. Man one asks man two for a nut from his new car.
4. Man two gives man one a nut from his new car.
5. Afterwards, man two proceeds to intentionally smash his car into a group of pedestrians (offense happens here, at the end)
The Real Situation:
1. Man one has in his possession various volumes of whole blood.
1. Man two needs a certain type of minor fraction for specific health reasons.
2. Man one fractionates some of his whole blood and offers the minor fractions to man two.
3. Man two accepts the minor fractions.
4. Afterwards, man one gives his leftover whole blood to man three (offense happens here).
As regards the “Real” illustration above, we are not paying someone to give us blood (steal in the opposer’s analogy). Those who accept blood fractions are paying someone to give them blood fractions, which may legitimately be viewed as no longer retaining their identity as ‘blood’. It is not our place to tell medical technicians what to do with the blood after they fractionate it.
Of course, JWs pay to receive blood fractions. The money they pay goes to medical technicians, doctors, and others to perform their jobs. But what the doctors and medical technicians choose to do with the blood after it is fractionated is not our concern. Let them do as they like with the blood. That is on them, not us. We cannot tell them they must pour it out on the ground anymore than we can tell the government not to spend our taxes on military weapons.
If I am taxed by the government and the money is used to build military weapons does that mean I contributed to war efforts. I have no say so in what the government does with their money. My only obligation is to pay Caesar's things to Caesar.
JWs, therefore, do not take what rightfully belongs to God. We do not 'steal' blood, even if doctors or others choose to later ‘steal’ it on their own.
Reference:
http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2009/09/blood-02-what-it-means-to-abstain.html
MARVIN 554
Marvin wrote:
DPA Blog
From his blog about Watchtower’s provided Durable Power of Attorney document,
Tears of Oberon earlier writes:
I do concede, that if the phrase “I accept all minor fractions” was the only statement on the entire DPA, and if there was no context, and if there was no Bible, then it would be possible to take every minor fraction at once without violating the intent of the phrase. However, it is NOT an isolated, out-of-context phrase.
Marvin continued:
Then ANSWER this question that is directly to the issue of abstention:
Tears of Oberon responds:
I already did. Go read.
Marvin wrote:
Can a Witness eat from blood that which 1] is NOT whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, AND 2] is NOT all the fractions at one time of what was whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma?
Well?
Can or Can’t?
Which is it?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Your statement is equivalent to:
Can a Witness eat X from blood…?
Tears of Oberon responds:
The answer to this is exactly the same answer that I have been giving for 500 posts: If X =/= Y [blood], then eating X does not violate the prohibition on eating blood.
Marvin wrote:
This is the ground Tears of Oberon has avoided over and over again, and for good reason.
Tears of Oberon responds:
For something that I have supposedly been avoiding, I sure have answered it a whole bunch of times now, including in my previous sentence…very strange…
Marvin wrote:
Answering that question will either condemn Watchtower’s blood doctrine or else show how foolish is the position Tears is defending. Will Tears answer this time? Or, will he keep avoiding the question?
Tears of Oberon responds:
I just answered for like, the 23rd time?
MARVIN 555
Marvin wrote:
DPA Blog -- NOT 100 percent
My question to Tears of Oberon stating:
"Can a Witness eat from blood that which 1] is NOT whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, AND 2] is NOT all the fractions at one time of what was whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma?"
Tears of Oberon responds:
Exact same answer as has already been give. See previous post, or post before that, or almost every single post written by Tears of Oberon going back to the beginning of this discussion, along with his supplemental blog articles.
Tears of Oberon
Marvin wrote:
Is NOT, I repeat NOT suggesting that 100 percent of what began as blood is used. Contrarily, the question stipulates that NOT 100 percent of the fractions from blood is eaten with the words, "is NOT all the fractions at one time of what was whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma"
Tears of Oberon responds:
Then your argument has not point, and I have no reason to keep refuting an argument that you have already abandoned yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment