Bunny Trails

[JohnH]

And yet, you routinely make sweeping generalizations about groups of people and present them in absolute terms. Seems like a person claiming to be a Christian ought to hold themselves to a higher standard of truth, not a lower standard.

Okay, Ken.

[ken_sylvania]

I said "OO Amish" specifically to refer to them (which I am the most familiar with), so as not to include Swartzentrubers, the Dan church, Tobe Amish (although I think they are using electricity now), and so forth.

The Swartzentrubers are Old Order Amish.

Okay then. I am using the term "Old Order Amish" to refer to the group of Old Order Amish who are, well, in fellowship with each other. It is a large group - probably the biggest group of Amish by population.

Is there another term you would prefer to refer to "Old Order Amish who are in fellowship with each other?" Swartzentrubers are a very distinct thing from the rest of the OO Amish.

In addition, you'll notice I didn't say all Amish, including OO Amish, are using electric or driving cars, just like some non-Anabaptist people don't drive cars and some don't use electricity either. I am simply saying that a blanket statement that "Amish" don't use electric or drive cars is not an accurate statement.

I noticed what you did say. You said that "electricity use is near universal amongst OO Amish." That was a false statement.
If you wanted to refer to a specific subset of OO Amish, you could have done so. You didn't.

I am simply saying that a blanket statement that "Amish" don't use electric or drive cars is not an accurate statement.

If that's what you wanted to say, why didn't you say it?
Did anybody even say that all "Amish" don't use electric or drive cars?

[ken_sylvania]

I expect journalists to do a basic amount of research, though, and not make outright bogus claims in their articles.

So it's OK for you to do, but not for a journalist?

What "outright bogus" claims do you think the writer made in that article?

What "outright bogus" claims do you think the writer made in that article?

[JohnH]

I noticed what you did say. You said that "electricity use is near universal amongst OO Amish." That was a false statement.
If you wanted to refer to a specific subset of OO Amish, you could have done so. You didn't.

I am simply saying that a blanket statement that "Amish" don't use electric or drive cars is not an accurate statement.

If that's what you wanted to say, why didn't you say it?
Did anybody even say that all "Amish" don't use electric or drive cars?

You and I have a fundamental disagreement on what the definition of "OO Amish" is, which we probably cannot reconcile. I think OO Amish refers to a specific group that goes by the identity Old Order Amish and is in fellowship with each other. You seem to make it quite a bit broader and include groups that broke away over a century ago and haven't been in mutual fellowship since.

We probably cannot resolve this.

Amongst the largest Old Order Amish group that is in full fellowship with itself (for lack of a better term), use of electricity is near-universal.

[JohnH]

I expect journalists to do a basic amount of research, though, and not make outright bogus claims in their articles.

So it's OK for you to do, but not for a journalist?

What "outright bogus" claims do you think the writer made in that article?

What "outright bogus" claims do you think the writer made in that article?

Ken, there doesn't seem to be much use to continuing this conversation here. (You and I could try to resolve our differences over in the Bunny Trail thread.) Overall, I'm not really that interested in dialoguing with someone who repeatedly accuses me of being a liar, etc., which seems to be a problem in the relationship between you and me.

If you are interested in resolving this, please PM me - I am interested, but it would take both of us making a sincere effort.

[ken_sylvania]

I noticed what you did say. You said that "electricity use is near universal amongst OO Amish." That was a false statement.
If you wanted to refer to a specific subset of OO Amish, you could have done so. You didn't.

I am simply saying that a blanket statement that "Amish" don't use electric or drive cars is not an accurate statement.

If that's what you wanted to say, why didn't you say it?
Did anybody even say that all "Amish" don't use electric or drive cars?

You and I have a fundamental disagreement on what the definition of "OO Amish" is, which we probably cannot reconcile. I think OO Amish refers to a specific group that goes by the identity Old Order Amish and is in fellowship with each other. You seem to make it quite a bit broader and include groups that broke away over a century ago and haven't been in mutual fellowship since.

We probably cannot resolve this.

Amongst the largest Old Order Amish group that is in full fellowship with itself (for lack of a better term), use of electricity is near-universal.

Words actually have meaning. The Swartzentruber Amish are a type of Old Order Amish. You used strong language to condemn journalists who aren't as specific and detailed as you think they ought to be in their writing, but you yourself aren't any better than they are.

Regardless of how strictly you define Old Order Amish, I ask again:

Did anybody in this discussion, or in the article I quoted, make a blanket statement that "Amish" don't use electric or drive cars?

[JohnH]

The quotation was:

The Mennonite faith extolls hard work and simple living, leading many families to settle in rural areas with better access to trades like farming, Hershberger said. Some Mennonite women dress modestly and wear caps over their hair, a look that some people mistake for Amish. And yes, Mennonites can use electricity and drive cars.

I took issue with the statement "Mennonites can use electricity and drive cars" (which is not a valid statement, although it's unclear on if Hershberger is making the statement or if the journalist is), and the implication of that statement that this is somehow in oppostion to Amish who can't do such things.

I suppose you could make a case for this being an entirely substance-free statement, but I would stand by saying that "Mennonites can use electricity and drive cars" isn't a valid statement overall regarding broad Mennonite doctrine & practice. Some use electricity, some drive cars, some maintain a religious structure expressly against doing those things.

[ken_sylvania]

The quotation was:

The Mennonite faith extolls hard work and simple living, leading many families to settle in rural areas with better access to trades like farming, Hershberger said. Some Mennonite women dress modestly and wear caps over their hair, a look that some people mistake for Amish. And yes, Mennonites can use electricity and drive cars.

I took issue with the statement "Mennonites can use electricity and drive cars" (which is not a valid statement, although it's unclear on if Hershberger is making the statement or if the journalist is), and the implication of that statement that this is somehow in oppostion to Amish who can't do such things.

I suppose you could make a case for this being an entirely substance-free statement, but I would stand by saying that "Mennonites can use electricity and drive cars" isn't a valid statement overall regarding broad Mennonite doctrine & practice. Some use electricity, some drive cars, some maintain a religious structure expressly against doing those things.

If the statement was a quote from Hershberger, then reporting that statement is certainly not an "outright bogus claim" by the reporter.

"Mennonites can use electricity and drive cars" is actually a valid statement. It's not a claim that all Mennonites do so. It's certainly not as apt to mislead as a statement that "some Mennonites use electricity" which would suggest that less than half of Mennonites do so.

But perhaps you would like to explain - if "Mennonites can use electricity and drive cars" is not a valid statement because many Old Order Mennonites do not drive cars and a small percentage of Old Order Mennonites do not use electricity, how can it be valid to say

the ones[Amish] near me drive cars (and trucks).

? Do ALL of the Amish near you drive cars and trucks????

[ohio jones]

Looking at cars since that's easier to measure, restricting the discussion to North America, and recognizing that the numbers are somewhat out of date, Scott (1996) estimated 9,791 horse and buggy Mennonites, 4.767 car-driving OOMs, 30,694 conservative Mennonites, 10,513 Amish Mennonites, and 16,188 Holdeman Mennonites. In that same time frame (1997) there were 112,311 members in the Mennonite Church and 67,353 in the General Conference Mennonite Church, according to GAMEO. That's 241,826 "car" Mennonites and 251,617 total Mennonites.

If over 96% of Mennonites are not restricted by their church from driving cars, and some of those in non-car-driving groups can use electricity, I don't see what's wrong with saying "Mennonites can use electricity and drive cars" in a newspaper article. Perhaps in an academic publication (or evidently here on MN) some nuancing might be appropriate.

[JohnH]

But perhaps you would like to explain - if "Mennonites can use electricity and drive cars" is not a valid statement because many Old Order Mennonites do not drive cars and a small percentage of Old Order Mennonites do not use electricity, how can it be valid to say

the ones[Amish] near me drive cars (and trucks).

? Do ALL of the Amish near you drive cars and trucks????

A statement like "Americans drive cars and trucks" doesn't mean all Americans drive cars and trucks. The Amish group nearest me seems to be adopting driving vehicles rather quickly, though (despite them not adopting things like e-bikes, or bicycles at all). Some people tell me that there is a division in the works between the car/truck-driving people vs the ones who don't want to start doing that.