Intellectual honesty requires that ideas get a fair hearing in discussion, debate and conversation.
Can we agree on that?
Holding persons or ideas up to ridicule has a different effect, however. It silences the fair hearing. It dismisses the conversation before it begins.
Right?
The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses will never be accused of intellectual honesty in this regard. Why? They never allow criticism!
Using labels, fear, prejudice and control this body of leaders stop members from listening BEFORE ideas CAN be heard, considered or weighed!
What is to be feared by a FAIR HEARING of ideas?
Can we agree on the following?
Good ideas drive away bad.
The better argument beats the inferior.
Labeling your critic or questioner an Apostate, demonic, mental defective or disrespectful enemy of God ENDS the fair hearing before it starts.
Jesus allowed questioners to question him. He engaged in debate. After ideas and arguments were heard he would call a spade a spade. But, the debate was allowed first!
The Governing Body allows no such debates as Jesus engaged in.
Could we now stop and ask ourselves if there is a fundamental principle involved in labeling so as to SHUT DOWN free idea exchange?
Could we say that pejoratives, labels and such betray a FEAR of something being exposed that might destroy the inferior idea?
Tyranny of the Minority is a reality. The Governing Body amounts to a few old men among 7 million Jehovah's Witness members and yet
they solidly impose their own will effectively. How is this possible?
Some people have mistakenly assumed that the higher the vote required to take an action, the greater the protection of the members. Instead the opposite is true. Whenever a vote of more than a majority is required to take an action, control is taken from the majority and given to the minority. ... The higher the vote required, the smaller the minority to which control pass es. (from "The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure" by Alice Sturgis)
What has this got to do with Jehovah's Witnesses? After all, they do not vote on policy.
In effect, however, the opposite is true--by remaining under the control of a minority leadership willingly members vote with their butts by staying in their seat during meetings and nodding and hi-lighting the words of their leaders.
How was this effected?
CENSORSHIP over FREE DISCOURSE imposed through RIDICULE and LABELING!
If you are made to fear any ideas OTHER THAN approved ones---censorship has ended all debate.
If every idea is on the table you are FREE to examine it for value.
After all, money has a value attached and it is printed or minted right on the face of the coin or bill.
We instantly know that .25 cents is less than a $10 bill.
Ideas are like currency, too. The exchange rate of ideas amounts to HOW EFFECTIVE they are.
Labeling currency COUNTERFEIT stops the exchange of money just as effectively as labeling ideas APOSTATE.
In Politics, the attack of an opponent by "going personal" demonstrates the poverty of ideas of the one using such an attack.
"My opponent is a liar" forces attention away reasoned discussion of ideas and policies.
Much more intellectually honest is, "Here are why my ideas are better than my opponent."
When you are asked to reason between two different things YOU have the power.
When you are told somebody or something is "Stupid" "Ridiculous" "Lying" etc. power to decide is removed FROM your consideration.
Removing other people's power to decide, consider and weigh is the mark of one who fears REASONABLE DISCOURSE.
On this discussion board arguments always begin with LABELING by name-calling. Always.
The one who does the name-calling demonstrates unwillingness to debate ideas, facts and logic by substituting prejudicial diversion.
Leveling accusations at Apostates by the Governing Body, in effect, silences debate because members cannot listen and will not hear what is said.
The one ironclad rule we can draw from this ridicule, slander, name-calling and censorship is plain:
The side with the weakest argument will call names when they fear they are losing in the free market of ideas.
You are empowered by hearing BOTH sides. You are being controlled and insulated when you are denied free access to all the facts.
BEWARE of the power of RIDICULE!
When somebody attempts to quote a source and a loud voice intrudes shouting:
"That person is an idiot (fill in the blank)" Remember this is not an argument of reasoned discourse with a free exchange of ideas!
It is an attempt to control what YOU will hear BEFORE you hear it.