Evidently, The Watchtower wants to make assertions that they can distance themselves from later, if necessary. We can conclude they seek plausible deniability, refusing to let their yes mean yes and their no mean no. It is our understanding they follow a pattern of using such "weasel words" and we should be confident that things they teach now as truth will later be reversed and explained away as "taking". It is suggested that nothing they print can be believed and we can conclude that possibly even they don't believe what they print. Honest hearted persons are wise to be cautious about what they read and it is suggested they don't believe any of it. What a fine example we set when we refuse to be taken in by such lies.
does the wt always carefully phrase sentences so as to never take blame?
by sowhatnow 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Vidiot
@ LisaRose : That was funny and clever.
-
Bobcat
It is interesting to compare WT literature paragraphs which use qualified (aka 'weasel') wording, with the questions that often accompany the paragraphs. It is not uncommon for the question to want the reader or audience to make a definite assertion to what the paragraph is only tentative about.
Bobcat
-
OneEyedJoe
It is interesting to compare WT literature paragraphs which use qualified (aka 'weasel') wording, with the questions that often accompany the paragraphs. It is not uncommon for the question to want the reader or audience to make a definite assertion to what the paragraph is only tentative about.
This, or the paragraph will say "many feel xyz about..." and the question forces you to internalize this to yourself "how do you feel about...?"
The writers aren't willing to commit to feeling that way, but you'd damn well better!