Happy New Year everyone. Taking time off this weekend.
We’re running parts of a speech John gave at the Steeling the Mind of America Conference in Denver, Colorado, in September of this year, highlighting the emerging trends and challenges of the next four years.
So often we’re told by opponents that we should be open-minded. Usually this happens when that person gets frustrated with logical challenges to their ideas. John’s boralogue examines what it means to be open-minded and whether that’s even really possible.
John Loeffler speaking at the “Steeling the Mind of America” conference in Denver, CO. Sept. 2011, examines the four looming storms: sovereign debt, peak oil, global famine and global war and explains how Christians can cope with these trying times.
The DVD is $16.00 with free shipping.
Click the image to purchase this and more Steel on Steel DVDs and products.
“No True Scotsman” Fallacy _ the arguer defines a term in a biased way in order to protect his position from rebuttals.
Example:
“You can believe what you want about Creation but no real scientist would agree with you. You don’t have any degrees!”
The “No True Scotsman” fallacy is actually made up of several fallacies. It’s a blend of equivocation and begging the question (possibly with an epithet) with a twist of faulty appeal to authority thrown in for garnish.
The redefinition of terms coupled with a derogatory remark makes this fallacy a popular weapon in heated debates when the two sides run out of intelligent things to say.
In our example above, suppose we brought in a well-known and highly credentialed expert to weigh the evidence. If he agreed with the Creationist, he could be dismissed as not being a real scientist. If he disagreed, one could use his notoriety as a faulty appeal to authority.
Truth exists in what is, not who says it. Reality is a powerful voice and it always gets the last word.
Free speech is essential to a free society, where people have the right to utter opinions others might find offensive. We’ll devote much of the program to exposing the effort many groups are making to keep them from saying it at all.
First we’ll examine whether or not the change of regime in North Korea will have any effect on the thousands of Christians who are oppressed or in work camps in that country. Rev. Paul Estabrooks from Open Doors (www.opendoorsusa.org) has been in North Korea and written a book on the subject.
Then attorney Richard Thompson from the Thomas More Law Center (www.thomasmore.org) appears regarding a lawsuit where several Michigan Christian students were publicly humiliated and bullied by their public school teacher for opposing his pro-homosexual indoctrination about…of all things…bullying.
Free speech is under fire by people attempting to use the “blank-a-phobe” card to stop open debate on various subjects. They’re not making intelligent arguments, just attempting to prevent the other side from speaking. Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch (www.jihadwatch.org) joins the program.
Finally, what role did religion play in the founding of the country? Professor Thomas Kidd from Baylor University returns to answer questions based on his new book, “Patrick Henry, First Among Patriots.”
John’s boralogue contrasts arguments by atheist apologists against the existence of God with the emphatic declaration of the Christmas message about God among us.
Naturalistic Fallacy _ the position that since something is a particular way, it is morally acceptable for it to be that way.
Examples:
“Might makes right. After all, it’s a jungle out there!”
“All natural is more healthy.”
“I can’t help it, It’s my nature.”
This fallacy really hangs on the ambiguous definition of what is normal, regular or natural. To further compound the problem, the assumption is that normal or natural is qualitatively better than otherwise. Arguments about the supposed supremacy of “more evolved” or advanced cultures has lead to a philosophical justification for the oppression or elimination of the “lesser” groups.
Advertisers use the premise that since their products or methods are “All natural”, that they are superior to “artificial” ones. What really defines natural and artificial? What is normal and why is it good or better?
You have to define the terms you’re working with: normal, natural, better, worse etc. Realize that in systems of dialectic consensus, that the terms and definitions are constantly changing within the confines of the group. They seek to use the size of the group to impose their definitions upon the rest. If you are “outside”, most likely your definitions are at odds with theirs.
A key historic sign of distressed currencies headed toward collapse occurs when governments enact currency control laws to prevent their people from moving wealth out of that currency. In essence, if the ship is going down, they want to make sure everyone goes with it.
Mark Nestmann (www.marknestmann.com), author of “The Lifeboat Strategy,” details the emerging monetary battle we’ll witness as people worldwide realize the US is no longer a safe place to do business.
Two weeks ago we interviewed attorney Charles Stimpson from the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org) regarding the National Defense Authorization Act, which appears to authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens suspected of terrorism without due process.
Connected to that was the issue of many Americans being prosecuted and convicted each year for silly crimes they didn’t even know were crimes. Law enforcement expert Steve Doran (www.shilohtv.com) returns to challenge what Stimpson said two weeks ago.
John’s boralogue examines the European monetary crisis in the light of the philosophy of the French Revolution and why it’s just one in a string of two-hundred year old failures.
Moralistic Fallacy _ the demand that because something should be a particular way, that it validates that way. Or, jumping from arguments about what ought to be to statements about what is.
Example:
“People shouldn’t steal things; It’s wrong and it’s against the law. Therefore, I don’t have to lock my doors when I leave home.”
This is the “In a perfect world…” argument. Usually, the person committing this fallacy has a certain preconception about how things should be. They’ve been offended by the harsh nature of reality and resort to elevating their “it ought to be so” scenario.
Those with power and wealth can’t resist shaping the world according to their view of how things should be. Progressive elites have always positioned themselves at the helm of the dialectic process to steer the herd toward a predetermined end.
The herd thinks they’re making a collective democratic choice, but the elites always change the rules and definitions to maintain control of the outcome.
