I’m not? I shall have to tell my friends – they were under the impression that I
was the highest governing body for a world religion.
But seriously, Tb, your statement above is completely illogical You are strawmanning.
Here is what you said.
… having to do both, if it was even possible, would create a conflict.
Both, under any circumstances, means caring for a family and serving where ones particular gifts can be used. It is not necessarily true that this would create a conflict. So, no more strawmen, please.
It is not
necessarily true that caring for a family and serving on the UHJ 'would not' create a conflict. It might create a conflict or it might not.. If you do not
know what the duties of service on the UHJ are, you cannot
know if it would create a conflict or not. This is called logical reasoning.
You really need to bone up on the logical fallacies. I did not create a straw man because I did not misrepresent your argument because it was easier to defeat than your real argument..
straw man
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
straw man definition - Google Search
And what you have just typed is the Fallacy fallacy
What is an example of fallacy fallacy?
An example of the fallacy-fallacy fallacy is the following: Alex: your argument contained a strawman, so you're wrong. Bob: it's wrong of you to assume that my argument is wrong just because it contains a fallacy, so that means that you're wrong, and my original argument was right.
Why Fallacious Arguments Can Have True Conclusions
What you committed in the post I responded to was the red herring fallacy.
I said that duties are duties, a job is a job and all jobs are different....
This has
nothing to do with me living in the past. You bringing that up is the red herring fallacy because me living in the past (even if that was the case) is
unrelated to what we were discussing. It is a
red herring because it misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.
Do you see how this works? When I accuse you of committing a fallacy I explain
how you committed it. I don't just throw out names of fallacies like you do. If you think I am wrong and you did not commit the fallacy you can explain why I am wrong, like I do when you accuse me of committing fallacies I did not commit..
Apparently you cannot defend yourself, so you throw out another fallacy in order to further confuse the issue and that is called deflection.
If you don't want to get called out on misapplying the fallacies I suggest that you either stop accusing me is committing fallacies or learn the fallacies.
It’s a combination of Bandwagon and Genetic. I look forward to your defence.
There will be no defense until you explain
why it is Bandwagon and Genetic.
You cannot just throw out names of fallacies and not explain
how I committed them.
That is like going into a court of law and accusing someone of a crime and not presenting any evidence that a crime has been committed.
Yes, many would label this as sexism.
So what? Just because
many people would label it as sexism that does not mean it
IS sexism.
If you are claiming it is sexism becaue many or most people believe it is sexism, that is
the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
In
argumentation theory, an
argumentum ad populum (
Latin for "
appeal to the people") is a
fallacious argument that concludes that a
proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
Yes, but don’t stop there; why do you think this was?
Because that is how people function within a society. People do not make big changes overnight, they make changes gradually, because people have to have time to adjust to new ideas.
So much for a faith for this age!
I said that in the future there might be women on the UHJ, but I did not say this would not happen in this age. It sounds like you just committed the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.
It will happen in this age since the UHJ is a Baha'i institution and the Baha'i Faith is the religion for this age. That is called deductive reasoning.
You said there is a reason, but you don’t know what that reason is. This is obviously irrational. Sometimes it is best just to admit your error and move on, Tb.
It is not irrational to admit I don't know something. It's called humility.
It is not an error just because I don't know the reason. If you read the article on that website I provided you could figure out a possible reason why there are no women on the UHJ -
yet.
https://bahai-library.com/Women on the Universal House of Justice
Another fallacy! Purely genetic this time. But you did make my point for me!
The same could be said of any organization which refuses to admit women to its governing body.
It is not MY fallacy, since I am not the one who determined that the Pope would be a man on the basis noted below.
Why isn't there any female pope?
Because the institutional Church is a patriarchal institute that has traditionally denigrated women.
It took years of struggle before women could even become priests in the Anglican Church and they have only been admitted to the Episcopacy very recently.
The Roman Catholic Church is way behind and personally I can’t ever see a woman sitting on the Papal throne - at least not as long as the Catholic Church continues in its present recognisable form.
The same could be said for the Patriarchates of the Orthodox Churches.
As I said, you helped me reach the target. I didn’t need too much ammunition; you did it for me.
No, the bullets just came back and hit you in the face. You just cannot see it, but any unbiased person reading these posts can see it.
All you continue to do is dig your grave deeper and provide more free advertising for the Baha'i Faith!
LOL! Yes, truth disclosed is good for everyone. It’s how we learn discernment.
Too bad that nothing you are disclosing about the Baha'i Faith is true.
People who do their own research will know that.
