250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood (page 10)

slimboyfat

Yes the 250,000 figure is pretty moronic when you think about it. If JWs have an annual death rate of 1% (roughly the worldwide average) and they averaged 4,000,000 members over the last 50 years, that would suggest around 2,000,000 JWs died in total over the last 50 years. If 250,000 of them died from refusing blood that would mean that 12.5% of all JW deaths are due to refusing blood. That's just ridiculous.

slimboyfat

AWAA have hardly shown themselves amenable to constructive criticism in the past. And talking to Marvin about anything is worse than banging your head against a brick wall. Maybe the best that can be done when they do stupid things or make stupid claims is to point out that not all ex-JWs are as unreasonable or stupid as they are.

Simon

Throughout your ramblings

regarding matters that don't really concern them.

That right there. Trying to put people down who 'dare' to criticise you.

How come our opinion has to be in private and hidden but you're can be published willy nilly?

It's not our fault if you get something wrong.

I've tried the private email thing before and got a load of abuse and insults for my effort.

Simon

I was pointing out that this thread seems intended first-and-foremost to criticize rather than to correct, or rectify. Names are named and fingers are pointed. No effort seems to have been made to get the misleading tweet deleted, which is easily done.

Was any effort made to come up with the sensible number in the first place? Why whould we be JBD, Marvin or Cedars unpaid quality control department?

Get over yourself already.

cedars

Simon

How come our opinion has to be in private and hidden but you're can be published willy nilly?

I don't recall saying people's opinions need to be private and hidden. Just that there are ways of fixing this sort of problem without the nuclear option of naming and shaming on a public forum. For example, as we speak I'm trying to get through to Julia to ask if she'll consider removing the tweet. It astonishes and disappoints me that this was not tried first.

I've tried the private email thing before and got a load of abuse and insults for my effort.

Is that a jab at me? If so, that's unfortunate. I've noticed that your idea of "abuse and insults" is not the same as mine.

Cedars

Simon

AWAA have hardly shown themselves amenable to constructive criticism in the past. And talking to Marvin about anything is worse than banging your head against a brick wall. Maybe the best that can be done when they do stupid things or make stupid claims is to point out that not all ex-JWs are as unreasonable or stupid as they are.

Exactly. We have EVERY right when someone is spewing idiotic nonsense to distance ourselves from it and make it clear that we don't agree with what they are putting out there.

How dare you suggest that we cannot and should not do this Cedars. I don't think I've ever come across an exJW who is still so completely and utterly wrapped up in their thinking and approach as though they are still part of the WTS.

Finkelstein

Open debate and discussion is a valuable tool to learn and intellectual grow.

Second, there are simpler explanations as to why the numbers are too high for reasonable common sense based on the study.

I agree with that Simon and I think most people would too.

Simon

I don't recall saying people's opinions need to be private and hidden. Just that there are ways of fixing this sort of problem without the nuclear option of naming and shaming on a public forum.

Erm ... the opposite of open and public is private and hidden which is exactly what you were just saying you wanted.

For example, as we speak I'm trying to get through to Julia to ask if she'll consider removing the tweet. It astonishes and disappoints me that this was not tried first.

Because of past experience with her?

Does anyone genuinely believe that she's done any research or thinking about this subject and hasn't simply plucked a number out of the air in an attempt to get some attention and publicity?

Cedars, you are naive.

Is that a jab at me? If so, that's unfortunate. I've noticed that your idea of "abuse and insults" is not the same as mine.

I thought everything was always about you? Any comment anyone makes you seem to take as a personal attack. Grow a pair.

Simon

If 250,000 of them died from refusing blood that would mean that 12.5% of all JW deaths are due to refusing blood. That's just ridiculous.

This is exactly the reasonable common sense I was talking about ... I think that if as many or more JWs were dying from refusing blood as from cancer or heart disease then the world would take notice and it would be big news - heck, it would be easy to get publicity ... I could pick up the phone and have reporters all over it and lawyers too.

But they are not because everyone knows that isn't reality so whatever math comes to that answer is by definition wrong and defending it is worse than simply correcting it.

It goes from people just making a mistake and being wrong to being dogmatic and stupid.

cedars

Since Simon is reduced to angry ad hominems and generalizations I will take my leave from this discussion. If there's one thing I know, it's the house always wins - and this is very much Simon's house.

For those who ARE bothered about fixing the problem, you will be pleased to know Julia has responded to my efforts to reach her and has now deleted her tweet.

Looks like I wasn't so "naive" after all.

Cedars

250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

Share this