Is this a loaded question?

[WileyCoyote]

Someone asked this question in another area of CF. I wanted to know if anyone thought it was a loaded question.

How important is doctrine when finding a mate? For instance, if someone attends a bible teaching church and someone is involved in the faith movement, would there be problems? Or would there be a comporize?

It seems like a loaded question to me because it makes the assumption that the faith movement doesn't teach from the Bible right in the question.

I'm not asking whether or not you believe the faith movement teaches from the Bible. But to word a question in a way that forces a person to answer and admit that it doesn't teach from the Bible is fallacious. Am I right in calling this a loaded question?

 

[charityagape]

It could be loaded and it could be just an uneducated assumption.

 

[dkbwarrior]

Its as loaded as this question:

How important is doctrine when finding a mate? For instance, if one person goes to a bible teaching church, and another is into calvinism, would there be problems? Or would they compromise?

Peace...

 

[Elijah2]

I guess the only way to disarm a loaded question is to remove the cartridge!

 

[JimB]

I answered no. I think it is an honest question and, since this forum is obsessed with the pros and cons of the “faith issue," I think it is an appropriate question.

It could be phrased, "Should a WOF’er who goes to a 'faith' church consider marriage to a non-WOF’er?" I would see no problem with that question, either.

~Jim

Faith means trusting in advance what will only make sense in reverse.​

 

[New_Wineskin]

Given only the statement without context , I voted "no" . For me , a "bible teaching" group does specific things with the Scriptures and usually not P/C while most or all of WOF *are* P/C . But , that is my perspective and , without additional context of the writer , it is all I have to go on .

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Someone asked this question in another area of CF. I wanted to know if anyone thought it was a loaded question.



It seems like a loaded question to me because it makes the assumption that the faith movement doesn't teach from the Bible right in the question.

I'm not asking whether or not you believe the faith movement teaches from the Bible. But to word a question in a way that forces a person to answer and admit that it doesn't teach from the Bible is fallacious. Am I right in calling this a loaded question?

You are correct. Strictly from an English language perspective, that is indeed a loaded question for the very reason you give. It is a "Have you stopped beating your wife?"-type question. Whether the person who asked it intended to ask a loaded question is irrelevent. Just like with a real gun, the owner may have thought it was unloaded, but there was still one round in the chamber!

 

[WileyCoyote]

Given only the statement without context , I voted "no" . For me , a "bible teaching" group does specific things with the Scriptures and usually not P/C while most or all of WOF *are* P/C . But , that is my perspective and , without additional context of the writer , it is all I have to go on .

I quoted the question in it's entirety. It was not pulled out of context.

 

[probinson]

Sure it is. Whether intentional or not, the person asking the question is clearly implying that people in the "faith movement" are not interested in "Bible teaching". It's a false dichotomy that makes it impossible to answer the question without conceding that "faith people" don't care about "Bible teaching".

To ask the same question in an unloaded fashion, it would say something like;

"How important is doctrine when finding a mate? For instance, if two people have different doctrinal beliefs, would there be problems? Or would there be a comporize [sic]?"

 

[dkbwarrior]

Given only the statement without context , I voted "no" . For me , a "bible teaching" group does specific things with the Scriptures and usually not P/C while most or all of WOF *are* P/C . But , that is my perspective and , without additional context of the writer , it is all I have to go on .

Hmmmm....

Sometimes I am flabberghasted at other peoples logic. What do you think the OP meant by "loaded question"?

Basically, you are saying it is not a loaded question, because you agree with the loaded assumption that WOF/PC are not a bible teaching group.

It sounds to me as if you are admitting that the question is loaded with the bias that they are not a bible teaching group, but that it is ok with you because you agree with the loaded bias? And therefore, because you agree with the bias, you will then say that it is not a bias, even though you just admitted that it is a bias.

Am I missing something?

How bout this:

How important is doctrine when finding a mate? For instance, if one person goes to a bible teaching church, but the other believes like newwineskin, would there be problems? Or would they compromise?

I dont know, would that be loaded?

Peace...

 

[WileyCoyote]

This is how I answered the question.

This is a logical fallacy known as a "loaded question". It contains an incriminating assumption that forces the answerer to agree with the assumption before they even get a chance to challenge it. This question is fallacious because many people (such as myself) believe that the faith movement teaches from the Bible. Your question tricks people into saying that the "faith movement" doesn't teach from the Bible.

This would be similar to me asking "How important is gender when selecting a potential employee? For instance, if you get a job candidate who is a hard worker, dedicated and punctual and you get a woman, which would you rather select?"

This would be fallacious because it assumes that women are not hard workers, dedicated or punctual right in the question.

Clearly you can see this error in reasoning, right?

 

[map4]

Given only the statement without context , I voted "no" . For me , a "bible teaching" group does specific things with the Scriptures and usually not P/C while most or all of WOF *are* P/C . But , that is my perspective and , without additional context of the writer , it is all I have to go on .

I did not say that it was out of context . I stated that without additional information or context , I wouldn't be able to know if the writer was implying anything else .

God , ... that gives me further proof that you were probably reading things into it .

But giving your perspective is not reading things into it

 

[WileyCoyote]

But giving your perspective is not reading things into it

I know. I didn't ask for his perspective. I asked whether I was right in calling that question loaded or not. That means give your answer, then zip it. I certainly didn't ask him to take the Lord's name in vain either.

 

[mont974x4]

It isn't a loaded question. It is a hypothetical situation where people meet and hold differing world views. There is no claim of heresy or any such thing.

I think the OP is being a tad over sensitive and jumping to conclusions. There really is not a boogey man under every bed and in every closet. Sometimes, a question is just a question.

 

[WileyCoyote]

It isn't a loaded question.

Thank you for your response. The rest of your post is superfluous.

 

[Tallen]

Yes it is a loaded question. It is leading.

 

[mont974x4]

Thank you for your response. The rest of your post is superfluous.

As was yours, as well as contradictory.

 

[dkbwarrior]

It isn't a loaded question. It is a hypothetical situation where people meet and hold differing world views. There is no claim of heresy or any such thing.

I think the OP is being a tad over sensitive and jumping to conclusions. There really is not a boogey man under every bed and in every closet. Sometimes, a question is just a question.

One of the greatest proofs of error is an inability to see the obvious.

Peace...

 

[KleinerApfel]

It's a loaded question, because whether consciously or unconsciously it reveals a prejudice in the one asking it.

I think I'd be inclined to ask, "What are you really wanting to know?" Then see if they're able to rephrase so it makes more sense and leaves you with real options for a reply.

If not, go and walk in the sunshine and have an ice cream.

I've always wondered about a "Bible Teaching Church" though - if a place doesn't teach from the bible, how is it a church anyway?!
It seems that people using that phrase generally mean, "A Church That Teaches The Bible In The Way I approve Of" !

 

[Tamara224]

I voted no because the question itself is not loaded. The question is simple "How important is doctrine when finding a mate?"

It was the example attached to the question that you didn't like or agree with and got distracted by.

But the question itself is not loaded.