Ignorance of Silent Lambies

by proplog2 57 Replies latest jw friends

  • Derrick
    Derrick
    Silent Lambs web-page is a reckless exhibition of opinion with no regard for "all-ness".

    What victims' web site can you point to that strives for "all-ness" by essentially proclaiming, e.g., "click on this link to visit the part of our web site where we demonstrate that some of those who claim they are victims are making false accusations", etc..?

    That's like saying that web sites for anti-racial causes should remain "balanced" and strive for "all-ness" by making absolutely certain that those accused of racism are also heard on their web site! Why should they give this opposing space on their web site, knowing there are plenty of other web sites devoted to the exact opposite goal of debunking their cause?

    The very nature of a victims' web site such as http://www.silentlambs.org/ requires focusing on the defense of the victims alone! Of course it will technically be "one sided"! Are you going to traumatize a child further by saying to her "honey, in the defense of 'all-ness' and in deference to the remote possibility that you are either lying, having a 'false memory' or otherwise deceiving us, we must devote part of this web site to allowing your abuser to have his say."

    Is that the gist of where you're going with this? That is exactly one aspect of what the Society is attempting to accomplish in its judicial committees in forcing the sexually abused child to face his/her abuser behind closed doors!

    While I observe what amounts to your continued online persecution (IMO) of Bill Bowen through your harsh criticism, I do not recall has ever been tempered with acknowledgment for real victims of sexual abuse or any expressions of empathy for these children!

    Don't you even care about them? Your attacks on Bill Bowen and the Silentlambs organization come across as mean-spirited, cruel and heartless. You fail to temper this harsh criticism with the expression of any regrets for the JW children who really suffer bonafide sexual abuse by congregation members. This demonstrates to me that you would rather sacrifice sexually abused children if they stand in the way of shooting down those you perceive as lying.

    That's like trying to discredit the entire Alcoholics Anonymous organization because you personally believe the head of this organization is somehow dishonest. Or it's like saying to an non-profit organization with the purpose of supporting severely suicidal individuals that you would rather see it shutdown -- even if this resulted in tens of thousands of additional suicides -- because you think its founder is insincere, dishonest, whatever.

    However, if you are successful in verbally discrediting Silentlambs, you have committed an even worse travesty in my book. Instead of discrediting an organization that treats alcoholics or those who struggle with suicidal thoughts, you will have successfully casted doubt on authentic cases of sexually abused children! What if your son or daughter was raped by an elder for example, in a case where medical and DNA evidence proved it? Suppose someone came along and said "that is so bogus, your son/daughter is such a liar" and continued to say "besides, medical and even DNA evidence can be flawed! It's always safer to consider the child is lying unless that child can provide 100% proof they were molested. Even a fraction of one percent less than 100% proof is unacceptable. In an ideal world, therefore, nobody would ever be accused of child molestation because it's, like duhh? it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove anything 100%! Take the U.S. justice system, in an ideal world nobody would ever get convicted of a crime because it's impossible to prove anything 100% Get the picture?" Indeed, I do. That comes across as what you're saying, Proplog2, and if true then why not consider moving to a country that supports this ideology?

    In closing, I want to reiterate that Silentlambs job is to champion for the victims of child abuse and not provide equal opportunity coverage of the accused abusers on this web site.

    By the way, I personally have not observed any "reckless exhibition of opinion" at http://www.silentlambs.org/ and suggest that all readers visit this link to judge for themselves. As for any regard for "all-ness" on his site, that is not the purpose of such a web site to cover both sides (and thus suggest that abusers might be innocent)! Obviously when a child says they were abused and medical and/or DNA and/or psychological analytical evidence supports this conclusion, then they need someone like Bill Bowen to champion them! If you knew you were sexually assaulted, you would want total support and not equal-opportunity coverage of the possibility that your attacker is actually innocent (leaving you as a possible liar), would you?

    Derrick

    To see a World in a Grain of Sand
    And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
    Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
    And Eternity in an hour.

    -- William Blake (Auguries of Innocence)

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed
    I am tired of the abusive language that has been dumped on me by otherwise respectable participants. It is assumed that if you aren't for the Silent Lambs cause then you are automatically and advocate of child molestation. In fact not a few in this forum have called me a child molester. What utter stupidity.

    And just what cause is it that upsets you so? That the Watchtower policy advocates sheltering known child molesters? That innocent victims be further victimized by the one source they should be able to turn to for support? That pedophiles can continue to get away with it?

    It was just a couple years ago that the Watchtower published scathing remarks against the Catholic church for harboring and sheltering these type of low lifes. Yet, all the while, they were doing the same!!!

    Make no mistake, the problem is not localized to the JWs, but they too have their share of blame in the debacle. Regardless of reporting laws, these jerks need to be held accountable, in a court of law!

    As one who was abused as a child and received even more abuse from the JWs as an adult, including false reports of abusing others, the Watchtower should be held accountable just as much as any other religion! Any report of abuse, especially sexual, should be immediately referred to the proper authorities, not swept under the rug by the "good old boy club!"

    If God's Spirit is filling a Kingdom Hall, how is it that Satan can manuever the ones within that Kingdom Hall at the same time?

  • proplog2
    proplog2

    Freeman:

    What's your obsession with stiff ones up the ass? And you "wish you could hire such services"? Is that an open invitation to those that may be willing to offer such services to you? Are you kind of threatening me? Are you putting out a solicitation for some goons to sodomize me for money?

    You're a great defender of your ideas. You are simply "Homo". You lost the Sapiens part a long time ago.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Proplog2 evades every challenge put to him yet again:

    : I was expressing my opinion in a way that would get attention.

    Oh? You certainly succeeded in that. The terrorists who knocked down the WTC could say the same thing.

    You told one poster that euphemisms ought to be used by victims and others describing horrendous acts. What kind of idiocy is that? You would turn "he raped me and threatened to kill me" into "we participated in an exchange of bodily fluids". Again, precisely the kind of minimization one would expect from a molester who doesn't want to admit of the horrendousness of his acts.

    : Silent Lambs web-page is a reckless exhibition of opinion with no regard for "all-ness".

    What kind of ignorant, self-serving pop-psychological bullshit is that?

    Obviously you have no idea what's even on the page. Furthermore, you haven't the intellectual wherewithal to give examples of what you think is mere "reckless opinion" on that site. In short, you're long on bullshit opinions and short on facts.

    : As with most opinion I agree that there are elements of the "nothing but.." fallacy.

    "Elements"? Your opinions so far are 100% fallacious.

    : Are you thinking about turning in that naughty hand yet? Which is it? Your left or your right?

    Are you soliciting me?

    To Joelbear:

    : Yeah, I know, if you dare to disagree with the crowd you've simply got to be a nutcase.

    No, Joelbear, if you consistently express nutty opinions and act in ways that most people consider nutty, you're probably a nutcase.

    : Don't cut me any slack.

    Fair enough.

    : Don't waste yours and my time insulting me and expecting me to engage in a name calling session like you do with others. I'm not interested.

    Good. I haven't called you any names. In fact, given your expressed delicate condition, I've refrained from commenting to you at all until now. But with this child molestation thing, you're touching my eye.

    : I did not state that I had facts. I stated that I had opinions.

    Indeed you did. However, when you express opinions on an open discussion forum, you must be prepared to have them challenged or refuted. You have a problem with that?

    : Provide me with facts or reasoning for me to consider to change my opinions.

    Ok, here you go. Earlier in this thread you expressed four opinions. I have no problem with 1. and 4., but 2. and 3. are very poor opinions indeed. So far, a complete lack of presentation of fact characterizes your expression of opinion. We note this below.

    : 2. I think the "Silent Lambs" issue is being handled poorly. Bill mixes his issues.

    Ah, here we have an affirmative statement of opinion: 'I think the issue is being handled poorly.' This is followed by what ought to be a statement of fact to back it up, but is really just another statement of opinion with no backing: "Bill mixes his issues." So, Joelbear, just what facts do you have to back up this claim of mixing issues? Surely not what you said next:

    : He posts anti-Watchtower material that has nothing to do with child abuse.

    Really. Give some examples. I see nothing on the Silentlambs website that is not directly related to the issue of child abuse.

    : He comes across as someone carrying a grudge. My opinion.

    Precisely -- your opinion. Without evidence to back it, it ain't worth shit.

    : Sorry, I keep going back and forth on this one because my conviction isn't clear.

    Then why express unfounded opinions?

    : But everytime I see him post he comes across as someone who is defending himself and his "righteous cause" and not the victims.

    Examples? Or is this more an example of your projecting your own ambiguity over
    what you should do about your own relationship with the JWs onto an issue that is related to your issues only in that they both have something to do with "sexuality"? Or perhaps it's an expression of your desire to protect the holy name of the organization you're ambivalent about returning to.

    : 3. I think in many cases these victims will feel victimized all over again if someone outside the issue is not brought in to insure that their mental and physical health is made paramount, not the destruction of the Watchtower or even the change in policy of the Watchtower. I think there is a clear danger of them feeling "used" all over again.

    What does this have to do with Bowen? Do you know what goes on behind the scenes? Do you have some special insight into what kind of help Bowen and those working with him are offering to victims? No, you don't, because you're not involved with "silentlambs". You're entirely wrapped up in your own problems. Nothing wrong with that, but you need to realize when not to express opinions that have no foundation. And of course, that offering substanceless opinions on an open discussion board is an explicit invitation to have them refuted.

    : Spare me the condescension.

    Why? Can't take the heat? Get out of the kitchen.

    : Bill has put himself in a public position and has taken on a huge responsibility.

    We all know that.

    : He can see me as some moron trying to cause him trouble and dismiss me or he can say, gee maybe I should think consider his comments as possibly valuable simply because he has proven he is not a yes man and has given no indication that his intention is to openly oppose giving assistance to the victims of abuse.

    Your intentions are irrelevant. You offer no facts, just unfounded opinions. Opinions that are demonstrably wrong.

    : I offer him criticism not for the sake of criticizing but because I care about the issue.

    Coulda fooled me. Just what positive things have you offered to the victims? Or to Bowen's efforts to force change upon the morally bankrupt and intellectually ossified Watchtower leadership?

    AlanF

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    Prolog2,

    I too wonder if you would lend such support to priests accused of molestation? As a victim of child sexual abuse I can not imagine too many sane people making false accusations. Yes, it does happen, but working in the field I can assure you that most accusations are NOT false. Yes, we should endeavor to prove such accusations, but stop WAY SHORT of telling a victim they will not be believed if they can't produce evidence.

    YERUSALYIM
    "Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
    [Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    Well I personally applaud Joel's comments and I know a good number hold the same reservations including myself. Good on him for stating an unpopular opinion.

    I think it is too easy to throw caution to the wind with this issue and refrain from balance, simply because those who pause to weigh out the whole matter are labeled as sympathizers with molesters.

    The damage a false accusation does to (generally a man's) character, even if charges are dismissed, is so great that nothing can make it better again. No one can deny this happens, and yet who is offering a solution to this horrible crime?

    Where is balance when it comes to this issue, and the matter Proplog brings to the table? How does one address the matter of memories that are not accurate and the damage caused to an innocent person?

    No one is saying molesters shouldn't be tried and convicted. But one of the key issues surrounding this matter is how do we know the victim is telling the truth? It is the courts and society in general that struggles with this, not just the Watchtower.

    Path

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    For me, the key issue is LETTING THE COURTS HANDLE IT. By trying to hide the issue (I'm talking both the Society and the Catholic Church) more damage is done to ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. And this for me is the issue, STOP PROTECTING the accused and let the SYSTEM WORK>

    YERUSALYIM
    "Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
    [Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]

  • proplog2
    proplog2

    Waiting:

    You're right. Ellis would not say "you shouldn't use should". He would say "you had better avoid using should".

    Ellis does a better job of explaining the philosophy I am talking about. It isn't just quibbling over words.

    Rational thinking isn't easy. But its not impossible.

  • proplog2
    proplog2

    Yerusaliyim:

    There are a lot of things that have to be determined before you turn a "brother" over to the police.

    If a JW wants to go to the police they can do so. If they get disfellowshipped for this THEN they ought to deal with that as a separate issue.

    While congregation Elders are sometimes incompetent in their actions the same can be said about police and social workers.

    A lot involves the context of the situation.

    DNA evidence. Sperm Samples. Physical examination. This is hard evidence. A 25 year old woman recalling something that happened to her when she was 10 is soft evidence.

  • ianao
    ianao

    "One man's rationale is another man's absurdity"

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit