TOLERANCE (page 4)

happytobefree

Grunt,

As always, I agree with you sentiments 100%.

Happy to be Free (Me)

Just a thought: What if one of the perpetrators of this impersonation was someone in this internet community whom you know, love, and trust? What if they had NO idea you would react this way, and didn't mean harm to you in doing this? (Before you ask, no, It's not ME,lol. I haven't known some of you long or well enough to be in this category)

If this were so, would you feel MORE tolerant of that person, once your found out? Or less?

Hugs,
RCat

waiting

Edited by - waiting on 15 February 2001 22:14:41

Frenchy

Thank you all again for your responses.
Take this along any lines you wish but in keeping with the theme of tolerance, where would you say the line is between tolerance and passiveness? We might be getting into RCat's recently posted thread here as well. How much tolerance should be exercised and where should we draw our personal line?

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

Grunt

Forget it of course. If it was someone I liked and respected then I would see it as just a lapse in judgement or warped humor. If it were someone like Gregg Stafford over at H20 bragging on himself and telling himself how patient he was, how masterful his arguements, and deserving of a better opponent, well that would lower your estimate even more now wouldn't it? Once Wit.net had a good idea about how to keep apostates out, ask them if they were apostates before they would let them post. It worked real well on most apostates as most wouldn't lie. Kind of funny really. I listed all the reasons that answering the questions SHOULDN'T bother me, lying being the Coin of the Realm in Watchtower Land at least coming out of Brooklyn, but when it came down to it, I couldn't lie about it. A number posted that they couldn't say the words either. Betrayed spouses probably hate lies too.

SixofNine

I think I see a bigger picture emerging, for me, about this issue. I am a skeptic by nature. I like to think it is because I care about cold hard truth so much. I like to think that my skepticism is healthy skepticism, a reflection of my honest personality. Still, for all I know, it may be pure nature, and very little nuture. My father is a bit of a skeptic as well.

But I bought into the WTBS 100% for most of my life. And stayed vested probably 95% even after I saw some glaring inconsistancies. I now believe it was all a lie, a fraud, a sham, a joke. How could this cynic have missed it for so long? The fact that the majority of the perpetrators are sincere probably helped.

Still, I don't think I have ever been fooled by an urban legend. I guess the difference is that I have never felt more than just a little guilty for questioning the veracity of a human when they try to sell me the absurd (save for when that human has convinced me from childhood that they are passing Gods word on to me).

And yet many, perhaps most, people are taken in by urban legends. I think urban legends, and religions, and Danielle have a lot in common. Not the least of which is that they are believed for the reason that on some level, the believer wants to believe.

What is that great Carl Sagan quote, talking about JW's and the 1914-no armageddon bust? He essentially said, "convicing people to believe the palpably untrue is the chief occupation of religions."

Why would anyone want to believe in Danielle? I wanted to because she looked like a dominating sexy redhead. But I think more likely for the board in general, she embodied a charactature of all that is wrong with our former religion. Rediculous in the face of reason, how wonderful would it have been to force someone like that to see the light of real truth, or, conversely, to hold them up as an example of how hard headedly silly the "faithful slave" has been.

Gloria? I'd be willing to bet that she was the real deal. And I don't think our reaction hastened her inevitable departure from the WTBS(I'm betting on 2.3 years, now. Anyone want to join the pool? I've got Big Ray being gone by 2003). Had we been the cunning, sneaky apostates the WT society makes us out to be, we could have likely sucked her into questioning without her even knowing. I'm not even sure I believe that would be a bad thing to do anymore.

But I don't think very many of us have the energy to keep up a facade anymore. I think we are for the most part just to damn honest.

joel

Isn't the whole idea of DB's...to give of your TRUE self...a little at a time...in exchange for the same from others...and by doin' so...create bonds..for support, encouragement n whatever needed.

How is what some of these "hit n run" posters do, of any benefit...unless the posts are OBVIOUSLY tongue in cheek.

Personally...I don't like bein' "taken for a ride"...unless I know the driver...that he/she likes to take JOY-rides on ocassion!

Pax,
joel

Simon

Focus: Sorry - just noticed the bit about the anonimizer service...
The reason I've blocked them is that in the past we've had trouble-makers who I removed because of the abusive posts they made. I blocked the anonymous proxy that they were using as a precaution.
It's for no other purpose.
Hope it's not causing too much inconvenience.

thinker

In regards to Tolerance:
I have no problem accepting someone else's right to have different OPINIONS. I don't mind active JW's having BLIND FAITH in the WTBTS. I welcome any who express themselves HONESTLY.
However, tolerance is not about accepting opinions and blind faith as FACT. When some come to this board and proclaim their opinions and blind faith as facts they are often bombarded with the REAL facts that most of us here are aware of.
When someone comes and expresses opinions as opinion and beliefs as faith, they are generally accepted and tolerated.

TOLERANCE