"I think it's the appropriate answer - open a dialogue with the kid first, privately. Then, within a fast time period, encourage kid to talk to professional. If the kid won't, report. If upon initial talking, you think the kid's in danger - call anyway."
As I've said before, I agree this approach is the one to follow with minors. If this is what Bill means then, as I said to him, we agree on that point. The troubling thing is getting him to spit out whether our suspicion of his meaning is correct, that we agree on this point, or whether he means something slightly or greatly different. As it stands his answer could mean very different things in terms of whether he would report with or without the minor's permission as a condition of helping them.
But whether we understand Bill's position here does not answer the question of how he would handle the same request from an adult victimized in childhood. His answer on that question is yet again ambiguous to the point that it could mean very different things in terms of whether he would report with or without the adult's permission as a condition of helping them.
The extension of this is what he would expect of JW elders to do in their situation. Would he have them act the same as he would (being a non-cleric) or would he have them act some other way, given the same circumstances? I don't know the answer to this and am not about to query him further. Bill will answer what he wants to answer and he will dodge what he wants to dodge. It's up to each person to make of his actions what they will.
Hello, ThatSucks As a point of logic, when a person is presented with a legitimate bifurcation then answering with "Neither" is saying "I will not answer the question." This is why my conclusion that Bill does not what to make his position clear.
I understand your feelings in this matter (despite your superior posturing). Unfortunately, Bill may not want to "answer the question" because as others have said, the issue is not a binary one, but one of variables.
The questions I posed to Bill are legitimate because they represent real life happenings. For a fact that are victims (children and adults) of child abuse who want help but will not accept it from anyone who would automatically report the incident without explicit permission from them, the victim. My question calls for a "black or white" answer because in real life the victim has presented a "black or white" request: either you will help me without reporting or you will report regardless of my feelings--which is it?
SL has answered many of your questions out of his own mouth. Re-read is answers above and maybe you will see what I mean. Take a look at waiting's post above, there are more ways to interpret SL's words than just hers.
Understanding requires logical analysis together with asking and answering specific questions of concern.
This attempt at self-justification is duely ignored.
Bill's response was no more than a reply. It was not an answer.
I beg to differ. Bill wasn't kidding when he said "thinking" ones. Remember, the WT is a slippery snake. Why would he give their lawyers any fuel for fire? I think he has answered your questions adequately, you just need to "read between the lines". That is, unless you have a specific reason for not doing so, other than ignorance.
I WAS A VICTIM. I AM STILL A VICTIM. I am still going through a personal 1st-person in person case with the Watchtower book publishing company and that's why I gun after anyone that says things have changed in the Watchttower book publishing company when they are actually gettting worse.
I know...nobody cares what the h**l I feel...except Silentlambs.
Only you know how I come across to you. Nevertheless, my quest on this thread has been to gain an understanding of important aspects of Bill's thinking and thereof what he would have others do. I don't know any other way to accomplish this than to ask questions, which I have done. It seems to me the straightest route to save everyone a lot of time is simple: read the questions and answer them straightforwardly. If follow-up questions are necessary for a person to understand what is meant then just get on with answering them.
As for whether Bill wants to go on public record with exactly what he thinks should be done in real life circumstances, I thought that exactly is what his efforts are about. I mean, if he feels like his approach is the best one then what good does it do to hide it by refusing to answer specific questions with an equally specific answer. The questions posed are so dirt simple practically anyone could give their answer to them. It is a safe assumption that Bill wants people to fall behind and support what he feels should happen regarding allegations of child abuse. Persons cannot do this responsibly unless they understand what he feels should happen. Only Bill knows what he's thinking. All we can do is ask questions and seek clarification.
As for clarifying these issues in private out of fear of WTS legal eagles, answers to questions I posed represent a position that should be made public for the good of all and hopefully to direct the WTS toward a better policy regarding alleged and known child abuse. Your objection seems to indicate a belief that it is maybe better to hide what should be done in cases like I posed until it can be revealed in a courtroom. If that is your meaning, that premise would be hard for me to swallow. But if you feel you could prove such a premise then I'm all ears.
You wrote:
I think he has answered your questions adequately, you just need to "read between the lines". That is, unless you have a specific reason for not doing so, other than ignorance.
Bill doesn't ask potential supporters to give ambivalent support so he shouldn't give ambivalent answers to concerns that are important to everyone who cares.
It makes my blood boil knowing firsthand how hurting WTS learned practices have been to so many victims of child abuse. For victims I have nothing but empathy. I too have been victimized. Love for my fellowman and outrage over my own victimization is a driving force for me, to help affect meaningful change.
Your objection seems to indicate a belief that it is maybe better to hide what should be done in cases like I posed until it can be revealed in a courtroom. If that is your meaning, that premise would be hard for me to swallow. But if you feel you could prove such a premise then I'm all ears.
Any perceived "premise" by me on your part is irrelevant. You could clear *ALL* of this up by talking to SL privately, yet you continue to persist that he answer pointed questions publicly. Unfortnately, unbeknownst (perhaps deliberately?) by you, answering your questions publicly can have a profound impact on legalities later. Fortunately for SL this is pure speculation on my part, and may or may not be why he answers your questions in the manner in which he does. (As I do not officially "speak" for him).
Bill doesn't ask potential supporters to give ambivalent support so he shouldn't give ambivalent answers to concerns that are important to everyone who cares.
When "who cares" can be someone trying to protect the image of their religion rather than protect the victims of molestation, ambivalence can be a powerful tool.
