FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Template:Antispeak"
m |
|||
| (54 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | <font color= | + | <font color=blue>{{#switch: {{{1}}} |
| − | | admit = "''' | + | | admit = <font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author claims that believers "admitted" something''' </font>—Critics claim that apologists only "admit" facts, while critics "disclose the truth."<br> |
| − | |apologist='''Dismissal of apologists' use of new data as simply a desperate ploy'''—When the facts don't stack up in the critics' favor, simply imply that apologists are executing a desperate ploy to try and distract you. | + | |apologist=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Dismissal of apologists' use of new data as simply a desperate ploy''' </font>—When the facts don't stack up in the critics' favor, simply imply that apologists are executing a desperate ploy to try and distract you.<br> |
| − | | caricature='''Caricature believers' arguments'''—Rather than accurately report and respond to | + | |beg the question=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is begging the question''': </font>—Critics will often assume what they are trying to prove in how they frame questions or describe issues.<br> |
| − | |despair='''Believers are characterized to be in a state of "desperation" or "despair"—Critics wish to make it appear that believers are never on solid ground based upon facts and that any attempt to support their belief is an act of desperation or despair. | + | |incomprehensible=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The argument is illogical''' </font>—The critic's argument makes absolutely no logical sense.<br> |
| − | |doesn't count='''Doesn't count''': | + | | caricature=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Caricature believers' arguments''' </font>—Rather than accurately report and respond to a statement offered by a believer, the critic misrepresents it and then criticizes their own straw man version.<br> |
| − | | ex-mormon='''Ex-Mormon message board posts do not produce the best evidence'''—Ex-mormon message board posts tend to let their rhetoric obscure facts. | + | | change opinion=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Believers aren't allowed to change their opinions''': </font>—If believers don't abandon their faith because of the critics' arguments, they are "ignoring the evidence." When believers change their opinions as new data become available, the critics declare that this means the believers are being inconsistent or caving in.<br> |
| − | | loaded= ''' | + | |despair=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Believers are characterized to be in a state of "desperation" or "despair" or "grasping at straws"''' </font>—Critics wish to make it appear that believers are never on solid ground based upon facts and that any attempt to support their belief is an act of desperation or despair.<br> |
| − | |mocking=''' | + | |doesn't count=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Doesn't count''': </font>—Critics like to claim the Church ''never'' or ''rarely'' does something, and then insist that every counter-example doesn't really count (if they mention them at all). This lets them ignore all evidence contrary to their position.<br> |
| − | |mutually exclusive=''' | + | |ex-mormon=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Quotes from Ex-Mormon message board posts do not produce the best evidence''' </font>—Ex-mormon message board posts tend to let their rhetoric obscure facts.<br> |
| − | | repeat = '''Repetition''' —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times. | + | |fundamentalism=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''the author is applying fundamentalist thinking''' </font>—The critic reveals extremely rigid, unrealistic expectations which he or she attributes to "the Church" or "the gospel," and then criticizes the Church or its leaders from being unable to meet this impossible standard.<br> |
| − | | shrill='''Shrillness makes you appear silly and inaccurate''' —When critics become shrill, they sacrifice accuracy and begin making silly sarcastic claims. | + | |generalization=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Generalization''' </font>—The non-believing critic attempts to speak on behalf of the majority of believing Church members.<br> |
| − | |truth=''' | + | |loaded=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is using loaded language''' </font>—Critics often use negative terms, biased language, or casual terms to make LDS matters seem bizarre, evil, or absurd.<br> |
| − | | warm fuzzies = "'''Warm fuzzies'''"—A mocking term used by critics to describe "feeling the spirit." | + | |liars=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is namecalling: liars''' </font>—Critics often assume or claim that LDS leaders or members are lying or dishonest. They do not consider or grant that even if they are in error, they might have made an error innocently or unintentionally. Any error (real or perceived) is evidence of ''lying''.<br> |
| + | |honest=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Believers not being honest''' </font>—Critics imply that if you do not accept their view, that you are "intellectually dishonest."<br> | ||
| + | |misunderstand=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author seriously misunderstands the data''' </font>—The critic either genuinely misunderstands an issue or feigns confusion, and then disputes his or her misunderstanding as if it were accurate. | ||
| + | |mocking=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is using mocking language and hyperbole to try to make his or her point''' </font>—The critic intentionally exaggerates claims in order to mock believers.<br> | ||
| + | |mutually exclusive=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is making mutually exclusive claims:''' </font>—When critics need an attack against the Church, ''any'' excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.<br> | ||
| + | |no mention=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Church never tells us''' </font>—Critics often claim the Church doesn't reveal or discuss something, when Church publications have discussed the matter, often at length and in detail.<br> | ||
| + | |not doctrine=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Not doctrine''' </font>—Critics make claims about what "the Church teaches" or what "I was taught," but these ideas are specifically repudiated by official sources.<br> | ||
| + | | repeat =<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Repetition''' </font>—Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.<br> | ||
| + | | shrill=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Shrillness makes you appear silly and inaccurate''' </font>—When critics become shrill, they sacrifice accuracy and begin making silly sarcastic claims.<br> | ||
| + | |truth=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author claims that critics are "lovers of truth" and "truth seekers," while believers are "desperate" and "liars"''' </font>—Critics always portray themselves as "truth seekers," and imply that believer are liars.<br> | ||
| + | | warm fuzzies = <font style="color: white; background: red"> "'''Warm fuzzies'''" </font>—A mocking term used by critics to describe "feeling the spirit."<br> | ||
| + | |spaghetti=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is using the "spaghetti defense"''' </font>—Critics cannot figure out how something happened, so they will throw every possible explanation at it that they can in the hope that one of them will "stick to the wall."<br> | ||
| + | |trivialization=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Trivialization''' </font>—Critics take a complex idea and attempt to trivialize it down to a few simple sound bites in order to prove their position.<br> | ||
| + | |circular reasoning=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is applying circular reasoning''' </font>—The premise used by the critic depends upon validity of the conclusion.<br> | ||
| + | |misquote=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author has misquoted the source''' </font>—Because the critic simply copies what they think are source quotes from other web sites, the quote does not match the source.<br> | ||
| + | |non-sequitur=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Non-sequitur''' </font>—The critic makes a statement having little or no relevance to what preceded it.<br> | ||
| + | |presentism=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is applying presentism''' </font>—The critics often ignore or fail to provide historical context to understand why things might have been different earlier.<br> | ||
| + | |pretending=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is pretending to be a believer''' </font>—The critics pretend to be believers by using phrases such as "we believe," even though they do not.<br> | ||
| + | |deception not lying=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Deception is OK. Lying is not.''' </font>—The critic advocates deception in order to make someone believe something that is not true, however, they reiterate that they do not advocate lying.<br> | ||
| + | |sarcasm=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is using sarcastic reasoning''' </font>—The critic makes sarcastic claims that are intended to generate an emotional reaction.<br> | ||
| + | |speaking for Jesus=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is "speaking for Jesus"''' </font>—The critic, despite not believing in God, presumes to "speak for Jesus".<br> | ||
| + | |speaking for God=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is "speaking for God"''' </font>—The critic, despite not believing in God, presumes to know what God ought to require.<br> | ||
| + | |unsupported=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is using an unsupported implication''' </font>—The critic wishes to make an implication based upon anonymous sources or heresay.<br> | ||
| + | |wishful thinking=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Wishful thinking'''— </font>Critics often come up with ideas on ex-Mormon message boards that represent "wishful thinking" that supports their idea that the Church is in decline.<br> | ||
| + | |corporation=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''The author is asserting that the Church is simply a corporation''' </font>—Critics like to portray the Church as a for-profit business.<br> | ||
| + | |misrepresent source=<font style="color: white; background: red"> '''Misrepresentation of source''' </font>—The author has taken a citation and misrepresented what it says.<br> | ||
}}</font> | }}</font> | ||
Latest revision as of 22:14, 20 November 2014