This Blog Has Moved!

This Blog Has Moved!
This Blog Has Moved to a more stable environment. Click the graphic above.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Logical Flaws of Ex-WCG Members

So far, those negative responses I've received have shown very little substance. Mostly they're a type of sly ad hominem. Remember when you were just a peon in the old WCG? Do you remember that smirk on the ministers' faces if you asked them a question?

Ex-WCG members have learned from it, and they have developed quite an effective immunity against any exploration of ideas. That immunity is reflected, not in any remarks of intellectual substance, but implied belittling of the "messenger" rather than exploring the "message".

The ultimate logical flaw in their reasoning is that, in showing how independent they are in their capacity to attack, there is no opportunity whatever for integrative learning. The sly remarks, so well administered by WCG ministers, has been learned, but very little more.

Basically, the argument says "Look at me! I can attack him! He's really stupid!"

Of course you wouldn't come right out and say that. The ad hominem content of your argument is masked, as in the "Retired Prof's" statement that he was just too nice to say "I'm full of it".

It's quite possible that I am, except for one glaring, obvious, undeniable fact: Of all the masked ad hominem, of all the hints at my obvious stupidity, not one person has shown the first scrap of evidence in any respect at all to demonstrate that I'm wrong.

Does it matter? I suppose not. Most of the ex-WCGites are so full of hatred and scorn for HWA that they will spend their lives grinding their teeth and "proving" that everyone else is an idiot.

Of course you can contrast that with those who spend their lives trying to prove that HWA really was a prophet, and they really didn't waste their lives trying to follow him.

Between those two extremes, there are those who are genuinely interested in learning, who actually did care deeply for the time spent with friends, however deceived they might have been.

The problem is, the two extremes I describe above are very maladaptive in their reactions. They will attack those who don't share their point of view. They might not insult, since they're too "nice", but they will imply, they will insinuate, they will work to every little sneaky extreme to discredit the messenger while avoiding ever examining the truth or falsehood of the message.

This, unfortunately, doesn't require a great deal of intelligence. Most any illiterate gang member can be a master of it. I learned it quite well in the marines, and nobody can accuse them of being highly intellectual.

Basically, the ad hominem attack is an excuse for not being able to think. If "I" can belittle "you", and discredit "you" before others, then "I" am more important than "you".

But in all of that, you have proven absolutely nothing. You have shown no capacity for critical thought, no ability to demonstrate any worthwhile level of intelligence, and you have only shown that you can attack, belittle, and discredit. I could do that when I was twelve years old.

4 comments:

Felix Taylor, Jr. said...

This was a very good post and I am damn glad you had the courage to write it. Frankly, Ralph this needed to be written. I can say as a former WCG member that we do need to learn that dialogue is not a dirty word. We are not agreeing and submitting with the other side, we are just taking notes. Of course, we don't and can't reason with those who are merely trolls or who have a "my way or the highway" approach. We only dialogue with those who have the capabilities of dialogue. If one does not dialogue, how does anyone grow?

Ralph said...

Thanks. You know, there were really a lot of good times with those members. Yes, we got scammed, yesm were riped off, yes, I'm angry about it. But can't we rise above that and listen to each other? I'm not on this page to tell people what to believe. I'm just throwng it out there and hoping it moves us toward growth. There will be another editor next month (I hope). The PT editor seemed to like what I write, and asked me to get things started. I hope we can come together in a spirit of friendship and learning. Maybe we're not too jaded for that.

The Painful Truth said...

Ralph,
Next months editor will be Al Dexter with some interesting stuff also!

Another point of view from inside the old wcg, from a man who knew Herbie. Here is an example of Al's writing as he responds to the most recent hatemail: http://tinyurl.com/yzoavdw

speakerbox said...

Well Said.