Logical Fallacies Anti-Polys love to employ

[steve]

In a moment of honesty, after you have completely shot their arguments to pieces, you will hear, "There isn't anything you can say that will convince me", or something to that effect. I told one of our church ministers that he was employing the "Willful Ignorance" Fallacy, when he told me that, the other day. It reminds me of the people in the Book of Acts who stuck their fingers in their ears, before they stoned Stephen to death.

Yeah, it is especially disconcerting while they are stoning you.


To lose an argument that way is one thing, but when they do it while making decisions about what you are allowed to do in your future really stinks.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

https://books.google.com/books?id=D...onepage&q=finger ears stephen stoning&f=false

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Yeah, it is especially disconcerting while they are stoning you.


To lose an argument that way is one thing, but when they do it while making decisions about what you are allowed to do in your future really stinks.

Yep! Ad Bacalerum AKA Argument by Force, and nope, .....you won that argument!

 

[frederick]

Yeah, it is especially disconcerting while they are stoning you.


To lose an argument that way is one thing, but when they do it while making decisions about what you are allowed to do in your future really stinks.

Yup, but it's what happened to our Lord. The religious leaders understood exactly what He was saying (e.g. John 5:16, 18), He affirmed it unequivocally (cf. v:19), and their rejection and hatred grew. We're in good company being on this side of those who reject and hate the truth.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

You are just trying to twist Scripture to make it say what you want it to say! Or, you are just looking for a loophole!

Argumentum ad lapidem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

 

[Verifyveritas76]

 

[Patrick Lauser]

How would you feel if your wife had another husband?

This argument probably comes from the Greek mathematical approach to morality ("a+b+b=a+a+b" showing that they assume "a=b") from which probably came the strange term "polygamy".

 

[steve]

This argument probably comes from the Greek mathematical approach to morality ("a+b+b=a+a+b" showing that they assume "a=b") from which probably came the strange term "polygamy".

Or you are overthinking it and it simply comes from the childish demand to have the same thing that another has.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

This argument probably comes from the Greek mathematical approach to morality ("a+b+b=a+a+b" showing that they assume "a=b") from which probably came the strange term "polygamy".

Technically speaking, polygamy comes from the Greek words "poly" and "gamos", meaning many marriages.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

"You just need the Holy Spirit to guide you, when you study the Scripture", or "You are not reading the Scriptures with discernment".

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I am kind of going in the direction of the Illusory Superiority Fallacy. It's like saying, "I have discretion, and you poor thing, do not."

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

"I feel sorry for you."

 

[sun]

I just want to know how would a society deal with divorce in a polygamous marriage? That is something that opponents of polygamy usually bring up.

Also, an argument that a woman brought up that I was reading on another forum is that only kings, nobles and rich men would only have multiple wives and that many men would be left without a wife. Would middle class people have access to polygamy?

 

[rockfox]

I just want to know how would a society deal with divorce in a polygamous marriage? That is something that opponents of polygamy usually bring up.

The same way society dealt with divorce before the 19th century. Divorce and marriage didn't used to be a state matter. In the Bible it falls under the authority of the family. This argument is a symptom of thinking the state is a solution to everything; that without the state things would go to hell in a handbasket.

only kings, nobles and rich men would only have multiple wives and that many men would be left without a wife. Would middle class people have access to polygamy?

There aren't enough kings nobles and rich men to soak up enough women to deny middle class men wives. The women they'd marry in a polygamous society aren't married to middle class men today, they're the mistresses and one-night-stands to those same rich men. The difference under polyamy would be less fornicating and more marriage and families.

This argument, though common, is a myth because it's never happened before. 85% of all human societies have been polygamous so we know what happens, only a small percentage have second wives and few have more than 1 or 2 extra.

We also know that with higher average family size and a 5 year age disparity between men and wives that there would be more extra women than men who want to marry them. So we're quite capable of producing enough surplus women to meet the marriage needs of the population.

Or you could just accuse them of being a marriage socialist forcing women to marry men they don't want and aren't attracted to.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

The second challenge you posed can be addressed as the Statistics Fallacy, and @rockfox has broken that down beautifully here. I think of the Divorce challenge, as a bit of a Red Herring Fallacy, where they try to switch the topic to something irrelevant, as our objective is to see fewer divorces, and we know that when women make better choices, their impetus for justifiable divorce (ie. abuse in the home), is much less likely to occur. The "husband cheated on me" excuse for divorce, no longer flies, when we notice that Jesus gave that fornication exception to the husband, not the wife.

When it comes to women making better choices, I am reminded of the "Tom, Dick, and Harry" flick that came out in the 50s or 60s. Unfortunately too many women marry the jock who is juiced up on steroids, or the party animal who lives for the moment, because he makes them feel good, and then they wonder why he is physically abusive, or drinks too much. Cap that off with Feminism's push for women to express themselves, and you end up with a lethal combination of the button pusher wife, whose husband has very little, if any, inhibitions. I have sympathy for the battered wife, but I remember when some of those women would not have anything to do with that tall lanky computer nerd, who was awkward around girls. While I have sympathy for their plight, I do not feel the slightest compulsion to pick up the pieces for them, after they fled the Nabal that they ended up with.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

"I feel sorry for you."

Appeal to Pity.

 

[Keith Martin]

[Break time] This is only tangentially related to this discussion, but I figure that those of you engaged in this particular discussion might be interested. I'm working on putting together a new thread that will feature a debate I had a few years back in Patriarchs Journal with the author of The Economics of Sex and Marriage in response to his reversal of support for polygamy.

Stay tuned.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

[Break time] This is only tangentially related to this discussion, but I figure that those of you engaged in this particular discussion might be interested. I'm working on putting together a new thread that will feature a debate I had a few years back in Patriarchs Journal with the author of The Economics of Sex and Marriage in response to his reversal of support for polygamy.

Stay tuned.

I am curious why he reversed his position.

 

[Keith Martin]

Like I said, stay tuned, but this won't be just a sound bite.

 

[sun]

I just saw this article and would like people's critique and opinions about it; is it right or wrong about polygamy?

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.n...ividualism-and-the-western-liberal-tradition/