Is this a loaded question?

[charityagape]

How important is doctrine when finding a mate? For instance, if someone attends an anti-faith church and someone is involved in the faith movement, would there be problems? Or would there be a compromise?

Are the above questionS loaded?

 

[Tamara224]

Also, someone said context is irrelevant here.

I beg to differ. Wiley took this quote from the Singles forum.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7390419/

In the Singles forum it's very common to have threads like "how important are looks when choosing a mate" and "would you date someone who ______" etc.

This is just another one of those types of threads.

And, if you read it, Wiley is the only one who seems to have thought the example in the OP was the question being asked. Everyone else was able to say either "yes, doctrine is important to me" or "no, doctrine isn't important to me." Most people ignored the example given and focused on other examples.

 

[probinson]

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

Agreed. That is not a loaded question.

However, there are really 3 questions being asked.

The next 2 questions is where the loading of the questions begins;

"...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 [sic]?"
​

"How important is doctrine when finding a mate" is a great question that any single Christian considering marriage should pray about and discuss with their prospective mate. It's a shame that the question got bogged down with all the unnecessary baggage.

 

[Tamara224]

How important is doctrine when finding a mate? For instance, if someone attends an anti-faith church and someone is involved in the faith movement, would there be problems? Or would there be a compromise?

Are the above questionS loaded?

The first question is not loaded.

The second and third questions (the example questions) aren't the real question being asked - they're a "for instance". They are biased, clearly (as was the example in the OP) - but it is possible to answer the "real" question without agreeing to the bias contained in the example. Hence, it's not a "loaded" question.

As has been proven in the thread in question by the fact that most of the people answered it without any mention of the anti-WoF bias. They mentioned their own biases, instead.

 

[WileyCoyote]

Agreed. That is not a loaded question.

However, there are really 3 questions being asked.

The next 2 questions is where the loading of the questions begins;

"...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 [sic]?"
​

"How important is doctrine when finding a mate" is a great question that any single Christian considering marriage should pray about and discuss with their prospective mate. It's a shame that the question got bogged down with all the unnecessary baggage.

AND may I add, in that particular thread, I highlighted the part I thought was loaded. There was one person who answered the other part of her post. That person asked:

Can you please clarify the difference between a "Bible teaching church" and "faith movement"?

To which the OP replied. . .

A bible teaching church is a church which teaches the bible book by book. The faith movement is a docterine which teaches wealth and health. It is also defined by "Name it and Claim It."

After making this loaded statement, the person who asked the question then responed:

So in other words it's heresy. To answer your original question, I guess it would all depend on whether or not you're willing to compromise what you believe.

So somebody DID address the other part of her post.

The first question might not be loaded, but the other question was. Just because most people skimmed around it doesn't mean a loaded question wasn't being asked in the OP.

 

[map4]

God ... Which is what you asked for in the OP .

You think that people are attacking you on every post . You then attack others for not agreeing that you are being attacked .

Try again.
I didn't write the OP.
And I didn't attack you or anyone else.

 

[dkbwarrior]

The first question is not loaded.

Agreed.

The second and third questions (the example questions) aren't the real question being asked - they're a "for instance". They are biased, clearly (as was the example in the OP) - but it is possible to answer the "real" question without agreeing to the bias contained in the example. Hence, it's not a "loaded" question.

And here I thought you were a lawyer! So you are contending that a loaded question is not defined by an inherent bias in the question itself, but by whether or not it is possible for the person responding to ignore the bias when answering?

That reminds me of a conversation that I had with a friend awhile back. He said in a discussion of politics "Bush lied and poeple died". I said, "How do you know he lied? Doesn't lying require that the person speaking know that what they are saying is not true? Do you know for a fact that Bush believed there were no WMDs but told us there were anyways?" He repsonded, "We know he lied, becuase we haven't found any, and people died behind it." (Like, duuuhhhhhhhh....).

A lie is not defined by what happens as a result of the statement, good or bad. It is defined by the intent of the speaker. So a loaded question is not defined by how people respond to it, but by the construction of the sentence/word/phrase used.

I would remind you that loaded dice dont always come up seven. They simply come up seven alot more often than regular dice. It is still possible to roll a nine, but that doesn't therefore mean that they are no longer loaded. Just because it is possible to answer a question without responding to the bias, doesn't mean that it is therefore not a question loaded with bias.

Peace...

 

[Tamara224]

Agreed.



And here I thought you were a lawyer!

Is it necessary for you to insult me in order to disagree with me?

So you are contending that a loaded question is not defined by an inherent bias in the question itself, but by whether or not it is possible for the person responding to ignore the bias when answering?

The definition of loaded question has nothing to do with "bias."

A loaded question is one which forces a person to admit to a presupposition when answering.

The classic example: "When did you stop beating your wife."

If a person answers "no" it implies that he is still beating his wife. If a person answers "yes" it implies he once beat his wife. Thus, the presupposition is admitted no matter how a person answers the question.

A loaded question is one which forces a certain response because it is "loaded" with a presupposition. (Presupposition = facts not established, assumption). A question that reveals a person's bias, but does not force a certain response, may be a bad question - but it's not a loaded one.

The example in the OP is not loaded because it didn't force anyone to accept the presupposition that WoF is not Bible believing in order to answer it. That's because the main question was not even about WoF - it was a general question about the importance of doctrine which could easily be answered without any reference to the bias.

That reminds me of a conversation that I had with a friend awhile back. He said in a discussion of politics "Bush lied and poeple died". I said, "How do you know he lied? Doesn't lying require that the person speaking know that what they are saying is not true? Do you know for a fact that Bush believed there were no WMDs but told us there were anyways?" He repsonded, "We know he lied, becuase we haven't found any, and people died behind it." (Like, duuuhhhhhhhh....).
...

Um, yeah. Let's just work with the definition of "loaded question" and quit talking about completely irrelevant stuff.

Here, I'll give you a couple sites to read up on what, exactly, a "loaded question" is.

Logical Fallacy: Loaded Question

Loaded question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[victoryword]

I always knew that doctrinal and theological prejudice was blinding, but it has never been more evident than it is on this thread. One need not be a WoFer to see that the question was indeed a loaded one. Yet many of the anti-wofers here, against sound and honest principles, will actually use twisted logic in order to argue against the idea that the question in the OP was indeed loaded.

The idea in the question is that the WoF movement doesn't teach the Bible because the WoF does not adhere to the doctrines of the questioner. Anyone engaging in conversation on these forums will see that the WoF quotes the Bible more than their opponents and is able to show how their opponents even misuse Biblical prooftexts on the rare occasions that they do [mis]quote the Bible.

The question was not only loaded, but it was full of bias and more than likely from a person who has derived all of his information about the Faith Movement from its critics and not from a personal examination, like most of the anti-wofers on this forum. Oh, I know a few of you claim that you were in the movement until you saw its errors but your posts lead me to believe otherwise. Is that a question of one's integrity? Well, you decide that.

 

[Tallen]

I always knew that doctrinal and theological prejudice was blinding, but it has never been more evident than it is on this thread. One need not be a WoFer to see that the question was indeed a loaded one. Yet many of the anti-wofers here, against sound and honest principles, will actually use twisted logic in order to argue against the idea that the question in the OP was indeed loaded.

The idea in the question is that the WoF movement doesn't teach the Bible because the WoF does not adhere to the doctrines of the questioner. Anyone engaging in conversation on these forums will see that the WoF quotes the Bible more than their opponents and is able to show how their opponents even misuse Biblical prooftexts on the rare occasions that they do [mis]quote the Bible.

The question was not only loaded, but it was full of bias and more than likely from a person who has derived all of his information about the Faith Movement from its critics and not from a personal examination, like most of the anti-wofers on this forum. Oh, I know a few of you claim that you were in the movement until you saw its errors but your posts lead me to believe otherwise. Is that a question of one's integrity? Well, you decide that.

BTW Vdub, your post was just as loaded as the question in the OP.

 

[Tamara224]

I always knew that doctrinal and theological prejudice was blinding, but it has never been more evident than it is on this post.

Fixed.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

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?

Yes, it is a loaded question.

But that aside, I do have enough issues with WoF doctrine that if a potential mate were an adherent, it's something I'd have to consider. One of my best friends is a WoFer, and we have friendly disagreements over that, but he's not a potential mate, so it's no big deal. Nor is it just WoF doctrines that worry me. I'd have the same kind of concerns about marrying a 5-point Calvinist, and IFB is right out.