0 likes

trackback from The Moral Liberal…

   0 likes

Wow. In one breath you wrongly denounce my logic. In another, I’m a flamer for not agreeing with you. Talk about non-sequitur.

Wrong and wrong, but nice attempt at playing the victim card.

   0 likes

Non sequitur, in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.(from Wikipedia)

You claim he is ignorant. How does it non sequit? It clearly follows. You claim ignorance; I showed evidence of intelligence and education. It’s great logic.

What I claimed is a non sequitur is that Oaks being a brilliant legal expert has no bearing on his ability to criticize higher education for keeping students ignorant about Mormon theology. Or, in more classic form:

Q: What would qualify someone to criticize higher education for keeping people ignorant of Mormon theology?
A (non sequitur): Having been a highly regarded lawyer.

My point: Dallin Oaks’s legal credentials do not make him qualified to talk about Mormon theology. There is no correlation between the two. If there were, then Thomas Monson’s lack of legal credentials would make him unfit to talk about Mormon theology.

Ergo, non sequitur.

   0 likes

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. (from Wikipedia)

Yet, you people have no problem calling a man “ignorant” who graduated at the top of his class at Chicago Law; has published law review articles that thirty years after they were written are still considered the most persuasive authority; clerked for the Chief Justice of Supreme Court of the United States, a job that is given to the very best law student in the country that dares to apply; has worked as BYU’s President; and still works on Utah’s Supreme Court. Which one of you haters will post your resume to outdo Dallin H. Oaks? Who is really arrogant here? I dare any of you to post your credentials and argue for why you have impacted more people positively than Oaks. Better yet, post your beliefs. It is easy to criticize.

You claimed we should not criticize Oaks because he was a highly acclaimed lawyer (top of his class, publications, etc.). That is a classic example of an appeal to authority.

   0 likes

Wow. In one breath you wrongly denounce my logic. In another, I’m a flamer for not agreeing with you. Talk about non-sequitur.

   0 likes

Actually, it is not an argument from authority. I didn’t say you have to believe in God because he does. I said stop insulting the man as an idiot. I’m asking you to show why you think you have the standing to call him ignorant. Are you a learned scholar of some sort? Why is he ignorant?

You claim he is ignorant. How does it non sequit? It clearly follows. You claim ignorance; I showed evidence of intelligence and education. It’s great logic.

“I love the double-standard employed here. “You people are mean for insulting believers and Dallin Oaks. Now shut up, listen and take me seriously while I insult you.”

How is that an insult to you if you think religion is ridiculous? If you’re insulted it’s because you really do have deep religious beliefs. Unfortunately, you’ve decided to dedicate your efforts into hatefully criticizing the church you left instead of just being willing to live and let be.

   0 likes

So, Oaks is only irrelevant if you don’t believe in Christ, any scriptures, or that you have a spirit.

Damn! You’re on to me.

Not knowable to people who are faithless and spiritually asleep.

I love the double-standard employed here. “You people are mean for insulting believers and Dallin Oaks. Now shut up, listen and take me seriously while I insult you.”

Which one of you haters will post your resume to outdo Dallin H. Oaks?

Which one of us “haters” criticized Oaks’s lawyer/judge credentials? Answer: None of us. In fact, most of us are actually quite sad that all Oaks could say was basically rather ridiculous claims about higher education leading people to be ignorant about non-existent Mormon theology.

Also, FYI, this is an argument from authority, and a non sequitur to boot. You’re claiming that we should care what Oaks says because he was a legal authority. If he were speaking on legal matters, I might consider that. But, his legal bona fides do not translate to religion at all. Ergo, argument from authority + non sequitur = really bad logical fallacy.

If you want us to take you as something other than a flamer, you’ll have to raise the level of your rhetoric, LDS Law Student.

   0 likes

Mormons are arrogant

Yet, you people have no problem calling a man “ignorant” who graduated at the top of his class at Chicago Law; has published law review articles that thirty years after they were written are still considered the most persuasive authority; clerked for the Chief Justice of Supreme Court of the United States, a job that is given to the very best law student in the country that dares to apply; has worked as BYU’s President; and still works on Utah’s Supreme Court.

Which one of you haters will post your resume to outdo Dallin H. Oaks? Who is really arrogant here? I dare any of you to post your credentials and argue for why you have impacted more people positively than Oaks. Better yet, post your beliefs. It is easy to criticize.

“Maybe I’m just a jaded secularist, but it sure seems like: #1 is heavily debated and certainly not knowable”

Not knowable to people who are faithless and spiritually asleep.

“If Oaks want to be taken seriously as entering real religious dialogue with mainstream religious America, he can’t just forever resort to gut-feelings and fleeting ideas (i.e., promptings). Anyone can try to argue their position by emotion, and it doesn’t accomplish anything – other than making the person speaking look illogical and nonsensical and one with whom you can’t have an intelligent conversation.”

First of all, to call Oaks illogical is ridiculous.

Second, you should have actually listened to his speech. He is talking about the existence of a knowledge that can only be communicated through the spirit, which is what Christ was talking about when he said, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit” (John 3:6).

So, Oaks is only irrelevant if you don’t believe in Christ, any scriptures, or that you have a spirit. But if that fits all of you, then why do you have such hatred towards Dallin H. Oaks? If you really don’t have any religious beliefs, then you would just say to each his own and engage your time elsewhere. The fact that you all so passionately dislike Dallin H.Oaks suggests that you have religious beliefs in churches that have taught you to hate Mormons or are offended Mormons yourselves.

Either way, it cannot be good for you to harbor such hatred.

   0 likes

Also, I suspect that when Oaks said that people in the US are generally ignorant about religion, he really meant that people in the US are generally ignorant about Mormonism. One would think Oaks would be fine with that, considering that most of the non-Mormons I know who do know anything of substance about Mormonism either think it’s a big joke or that it is a cult.

Elaine

   0 likes