Here ya go, EP:
Why get "personal" when discussing a topic?
by Terry 135 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
ballistic
thank you for posting my pic.
As far as the thread goes, I agree in general to not hurl insults and be empathetic to peoiples circumstances and abilities when discussing things,
but when I look at Brian Cox's picture above and what he is saying, I agree, sometimes people are just twats.
-
King Solomon
Terry, I was floored by this comment, as I think it inadvertently makes a relevant point:
"What might, on the surface, appear to be a simple statement of fact might be harassment. A strange man walks up to your wife in the grocery store and says to her: "Those shorts sure do look good on you, ma'am."
That is a classic example of OPINION, not FACT, ie there is no independent method of confirming if something looks "good", and like the old saying goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". The guy who said that is inappropriately sharing his opinion, and cannot hide behind the cover of calling it a fact (although her husband's ego might be blinded into belief that it is a fact; although that still doesn't make it into a "fact").
That's part of the problem here: people aren't trained in rhetoric/logic, nor must/should they be; however, if they want to ever learn and practice the principles of ANYTHING (music, etc) they have to accept critique, not as an affront to their egos, but as an opportunity to learn from those who may have been there, done it, and can point out their critical errors.
The fastest way to kill self-growth is to assume we ARE omniscient, know everythings. I've studied music from childhood, and the first thing most beginners must learn is that the attitude has to go; if you can't accept criticism (esp from the teacher who you're paying for lessons, no less!), the young student might as well save their parents money, as they will learn essentially nothing.
The fact is, people who are reading here ARE the lucky ones, since they reached a level of reasoning to "awaken", and had the strength to do something about it. However, they also were JWs for a reason: they didn't possess or use such critical-thinking skills on the front end, for many different reasons. Many who were born-ins never developed those critical-thinking skills, and hence were essentially intentionally handicapped so as to stay.
Point is, people enter with different skills, but the worse thing we could do, IMO, is to not teach someone to fish for facts. If someone refuses outside input, so be it: some have to learn lifes lessons the hard way.....
-
Broken Promises
Ballistic, not EP!
Apologies for the name mixup
-
panhandlegirl
Many who were born-ins never developed those critical-thinking skills, and hence were essentially intentionally handicapped so as to stay.
King Soloman, you might be right about that. I always used to ask myself why I didn't plan and think about life like my schoolmates did but then I am reminded of the words in one of Cat Steven's song that says
"From the moment I was born, I was ordered to listen." We, who never had a choice in the matter of becoming jws, grew up having someone else telling us what to think and believe. We were never allowed to think or make our
own decisions about anything. Some born-ins were independent enough to break away sooner that those of us who stayed for years. Family and peer pressure, plus the fear of losing it all kept us tied to the organization. Some
have had to play catch-up with those outside the borg.
-
King Solomon
PHG,
Word.
It's all conjecture, of course, but I really don't know if I would've had the power to break free if I had been raised by both parents who were JWs. My Mom was a JW convert (after a divorce from my Dad), but she had a stubborn streak and enough courage of her convictions to realize it was NOT a right choice to surrender her power to anyone; she instilled that in me, I suppose (of 4 kids, 2 broke free: 50%). My "Worldly" dad wanted NOOOO part of JWs; he was the furthest from a JW you can imagine (not as in the typical JW definition of someone who is doing drugs, engaging in loose sex, materialistic, etc; I mean he was "strong-minded" enough to not sacrifice his life-course to a group of window-washers and office cleaners).
MAJOR props to any born-ins that managed to escape intact, because as you say, it's all about thought control, EVEN IF the parents don't realize it as such... That's the insidious thing here: the parents are doing what they sincerely believe is best for their kids, and hence they are extremely convincing: they really DO believe they are acting in their kid's best interests.
e.g. they tell themselves that home schooling is done out of love, when an outsider quickly identifies it to be no more than intellectual incest, a way to avoid exposure to "bad influences" like any book that would dare ask questions. Worse is the parents never learned to ask such questions, and hence they cannot teach that which they themselves don't even know. It truly is an ugly cycle....
And that's my point here: no one (or few) would be reading here if they'd already had those skills, so it's good for everyone to enjoy a nice slice of humble pie and admit they may not be "all that", when they may still be playing catch-up to some of their "Worldly" counterparts who learned this stuff early on (but "better late than never" defo applies! Thankfully they were awoken!).