RVW said:
Who can question that? Who HERE equates LOVE with a mental illnes?
Don't strawman me, RVW. I NEVER equated "love" with mental illness. Go back and check, and you'll NEVER find it, because I actually understand WHY modern psychology has long-since abandoned the idea of UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, which is a sign of mental instability (read Love's Executioner, where an older woman engaged in obsession and stalking behavior, followed by episodes of profounde depression and grief for decades after a one-time sexual encounter).
Fact is, any evidence-based clinical practice of medicine or psychology HAS to be based on changing viewpoints, as further evidence arises: THAT'S HOW the scientific method works. Likewise, claiming that any emotion exists as permanent, completely removed from conditions or additional evidence implies the emotional switch is LOCKED into ONE position (whether ON or OFF). You're going to have a tough job of convincing anyone who's worked with patients in a mental-health area that UL is worthy goal to recommend to their patients. Emotions NEED to being able to change, as is demanded by the existing conditions.
(BTW, just becuase you start a thread doesn't entitle you to engage in mischaracterizing the words of others, as you did.)
Who HERE deflects the answers given by the questions he raised by snide remarks and ridicule relating to those of us who were hoodwinked by the WTS? Who HERE (like RECOVERY did on his thread) asked questions and then try to set the RULES and Boundaries to follow. (See KSol post # 1769 on this thread)
I responded, but you didn't like the response, as I actually read the evidence you presented and realized it didn't begin to support your claim, but did the contrary. If you want to engage in a logical fact-based (evidence-based) examination of any issue, then the evidence you present SHOULD support your claim, not invalidate it.
And if you automatically interpret all challenges to your beliefs as a threat to your ego or self, then that's your own business, but realize you've learned NOTHING about confronting life with your eyes wide open, accepting reality as it's presented vs denying it. I come here expecting MY posts to be challenged, but not via straw-manning mischaracterization, etc. Present evidence, and I change: no idea is to be accepted as dogma for a scientist: it's ALL open to revision (and that, in a nutshell, is a difference between science and religious-like belief).
The problem in a forum, such as this, is that sometimes the deflected subject may or may not be applicable. That people are speaking to other people with feelings, experiences, pains and joys, like everyone else. We are NOT AVATARS. We are human fleshed beings that are more similar than dissimmilar.
I said that all opinions were welcome here on this subject and I meant it. But when it becomes more of a character assassination than a discussion, it fails.
So don't attack other's character, and don't ask questions when you REALLY don't want to seek honest, fact-based responses. If you're looking for a large group to confirm your bias, consider that there's JWs who are all willing to tell each other they're in "The Truth". That's simply reinforcement of shared-biases: that IS the definition of a cult.
In fact, for ME to let others wallow in their fantasies is NOT an act of love for others on my part, which is exactly WHY I post here on a board critical of JW policies. Consider my posts as validation for those who ARE potentially persuaded by evidence as encouragement to further questioning the JW policies, or who are asking themselves, "Is it ME? Am I the crazy one in the JWs for even doubting").
However, I'm not going to lie or exaggerate the case to vent my own spleen in anger at WTBTS (and there's very little for me to be angry about: I moved on over 30 years ago, and have lived a self-actualized life (per Maslow), and didn't feel even feel any anger about JWs when I left: I wasn't baptized, and best revenge is living well, so I just moved on with my life). Overstating and demonizing only shoots the speaker in their own foot, undermining their own credibility, objectivity, fairness...
This thread has exhausted the topic, I feel; since I'm now repeating points made in posts by others from page 5 that were ignored, it seems the topic has been covered in a fairly comprehensive manner, so I won't be saying anything more (unless someone has additional compelling evidence to add).
