ANY medical procedure is dangerous. For instance, even prescription meds....I have so many people say "Hey, can't you get meds with less side effcts?" And I say, no, it's a trade off, almost any med can, and will mess with you, and be LETHAL to some of the poulation. But, what are you gonna do? The benefits far outweigh the negatives.
They didn't have to misrepresent anything!
by Lady Lee 30 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Finally-Free
But they twisted what people said, they used quotes out of context, and they outright deceived people.
Old habits die hard. They're probably so accustomed to being deceptive it probably never occurred to them to try to be honest.
W
-
Elsewhere
Compulsive liars can't help themselves. They will lie whether they need to or not.
-
Narkissos
Playing the
WTS'sdevil's advocate for a moment: doesn't this argument cut both ways? If misrepresentation can be shown to be unnecessary, doesn't that mean it is undecisive too? IOW, the only plaintiff who could rightfully complain of a prejudice due to misrepresentation is the one who could show s/he was unconvinced by the (phony) scriptural argument but only by the fake medical information? (Serious legal question here.) -
Lady Lee
They're probably so accustomed to being deceptive it probably never occurred to them to try to be honest.
and
Compulsive liars can't help themselves. They will lie whether they need to or not.
Truer words were never spoken. I have family that fit this. They lie so much they don't even know what the truth is anymore.
Narkissos
Playing the
OK sitting here trying to wrap my mind around your legaleseWTS'sdevil's advocate for a moment: doesn't this argument cut both ways? If misrepresentation can be shown to be unnecessary, doesn't that mean it is undecisive too? IOW, the only plaintiff who could rightfully complain of a prejudice due to misrepresentation is the one who could show s/he was unconvinced by the (phony) scriptural argument but only by the fake medical information? (Serious legal question here.) -
ozziepost
If your basis for making a rule against blood is religious, then why bother commenting on the medical benefits of the rule?
EXACTLY !!
-
katiekitten
If your basis for making a rule against blood is religious, then why bother commenting on the medical benefits of the rule?
I think it must be a kind of arrogance. Not content with giving religious reasons, they want something 'worldly' to legitimize it. They just cant resist can they?
-
ozziepost
That's right, katie, so we come back to Lee's initial point that they didn't need to do it if their theology was sound.
-
gumby
I was able to finda lot of articles on blood and the dangers of using blood.
I certainly found more than enough research papers to support the no-blood issue in favor of the JWs and their choice to abstain from blood.
My prof was stunned. He had been adamantly opposed to the WTS stand on blood. But after reading my paper he said he changed his mind.
There are enough document, research studies and paper to support thie belief. I'm not even a medical student and I was able to find the articles I needed to suppport their belief that blood is dangerous.
(Believe me, I don't think this way anymore)
LadyLee.
If you found this much evidence AGAINST the use of blood, why don't you think this way any longer? It looks like you listed quite a few reasons to abstain from it.
Gumby
-
Lady Lee
Actually ozzie my point was purly regarding the medical aspect of it. If they wanted to use medical argument to support their scriptural arguments there was no need to misquote anyone. There are enough medical papers to support their stand. They just decided to misrepresent instead
But the argument regarding the scriptual basis for their prohibition should have been enough. Heck they plant enough fear into JWs that the scriptural prohibition should have been enough