As you read and listen to arguments for and against Israel and the Jews (or any argument), these tips are helpful in recognizing when something may or may not be true:
- Understand logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always distract from real arguments and create controversies that are more about ego than they are about truth.
- Always check the sources. This means clicking on a hyperlink in an article to make sure the link is proving what the author says it is. This means looking up what podcasters say is “common knowledge”, or “all over the internet”. And this means reading through whole articles that media personalities may reference as proof for something they said. It takes more time, but for something that really matters to you, it’s worth it.
- Don’t let fear or intrigue be the deciding factor. Too often, fear causes us to assume the worst and believe the first solution we hear hoping to make it all go away. Other times, we like to pander to lurid curiosity because it makes us feel justified in our actions, pushes accountability onto others, and crams the world into a simple box where some people are evil and some people are righteous. Exercising faith in God will not only help take away that fear, but teach us that every person is deeply flawed, including ourselves.
- Speak kindly to those you disagree with. Disagreeing with someone is not only legal, but healthy. It can be extremely valuable for individuals to run into those they disagree with and interact with another point of view. Be kind when trying to explain your side of the argument.
- Feel free to send others to our website. We hope this will be a place that will help the house of Israel be a family that can get along and help each other.
Understand Logical Fallacies
- Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself.
- Straw Man: Misrepresenting an opponent’s position as weaker or more extreme to make it easier to refute.
- Slippery Slope: Claiming that a single event will inevitably lead to a chain of negative consequences without sufficient evidence.
- False Dilemma: Presenting only two extreme options when other reasonable alternatives exist.
- Hasty Generalization: Drawing a broad conclusion based on an unrepresentative sample or insufficient evidence.
- Appeal to Authority: Asserting a claim is true because an authority figure says it, even if they lack relevant expertise or contradict the consensus.
- Bandwagon: Arguing that a claim is true or an action is right simply because many people believe or do it.
- Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Assuming that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second.
- Circular Reasoning: Using the conclusion of an argument as one of its premises, offering no new support.
- Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the actual issue at hand.
- Questioning: coming up with questions about the problem, does not necessarily point to an actual problem. Often it is a Red Herring, a Straw Man, or False Dilemma. Sometimes questions can be used to insinuate damning information without ever being held accountable for proof when accusing someone of wrongdoing.
There are many more logical fallacies and many websites that teach about them. Here is a good one.
Logical fallacies are everywhere. Everybody uses them, probably because it’s very comfortable to justify our current way of understanding the world without having to fully think through that position. Finding logical fallacies doesn’t mean an argument is completely false, but it should raise red flags and get you to start checking into other parts of their argument.
Always check their sources.
While there is no law requiring journalists to follow certain standards, most journalists do follow a code of ethics. These codes are taught to conservative and liberal journalists alike, though not always followed. Some of these codes include acquiring as many “sources” (in journalist terms, this means a person who gives you a first-hand story) as possible before you report on a story. The Bible is a wonderful guide, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established,” and many journalists follow this rule: get at least three sources for your story, especially if it is incriminating. Many independent journalists or media personalities have freedom from supervision. This is both a positive and a negative. While they can report on anything and in any way, the audience may trust that their information has been checked and verified, when many times it has not been. And often, supervisors and editors are biased, publishing stories that are factually incorrect. Today’s world of journalism requires more scrutiny from the listener, whether it be from independent or more established media. When a journalist or media personality references an article, definition, or “fact,” don’t trust that they’ve double-checked those sources. As many good journalists learn to ask: what are their motivations in sharing this information? As no person is truly unbiased, consider what the individual’s or publication’s bias is, and whether or not it taints the information. Don’t trust that they have verified their sources, even if they say they have. Read information from both sides of the argument. Listening or reading only one side of an issue is the fastest route to falsehoods. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. There are many more guidelines for journalists to follow, here. Consider whether or not these codes are useful to journalists in reporting truth, and whether or not the authors you read and listen to follow them.
Don’t let fear [or anxiety or even intrigue] be the deciding factor.
Fear is stifling, it makes us stop thinking and start reacting. It removes all logic and common sense from the situation. It’s important to push it away and try remain careful and logical about everything. As you do, you will start to recognize logical fallacies and you will begin to see problems with the argument you never noticed before. Soon you will notice the fear is no long gripping you.
Speak kindly to those you disagree with.
Always remain respectful and kind. Making fun of or demeaning someone for their beliefs won’t help. Ask questions: would they tell you where they heard that, have they researched it themselves, why do they think that matters, etc. Just asking questions can cause the other person to reconsider some of the beliefs they are currently taking for granted, and vice-versa!
Even if the person you are engaging with is being disrespectful and unkind, you don’t have to reciprocate. You can still show them kindness and respect. Sometimes, as both the Savior and King Saul demonstrated, the best response is no response, even if it makes you lose the argument.
Send others to our website.
We’re here to help. If we don’t have the answer you’re looking for, let us know. We want to help people find out exactly what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches about Judaism, Jews, and Israel. You can submit questions here.