Friend it is pointless to try to talk in a reasoned manner with the brain dead and dishonest, a deadly combination. They talk about Witnesses being mind-numbed robots!
Always interesting to read your stuff. Haven't seen you around much lately.
PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?
by Focus 173 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Friend
Xandit
Yes, I agree. I suppose we each must nevertheless test the water a bit toward satisfying our personal desire to help, if that is possible.
Friend
-
Xandit
I suppose that's the way to look at it. I just don't have the patience to deal with the deliberately oblivious.
-
Scorpion
Deliberatly oblivious!
That is a great term for those that support organized religion like the Watchtower.
-
Focus
Friend, you unecstatic back-patting with Xandit might have been premature! I did declare (in the Nazi-defender analogy thread) that I was stopping for a while; probably you missed that.
We resume. May I borrow from http://www.coolboard.com/msgshow.cfm/msgboard=25212130276676&msg=64837839780285&page=1&idDispSub=32339594032428 and continue?
You declare you have broken off the discussion: I imagine because you feel my declared position is illogical or wrong. Let me focus you a bit, and see if you understand my one-word answer.
This whole direction in which you wish to take the discussion thing is about how people: JWs - in this case, the hypothetical witness to the killing (not 'murder' as you stated, that is something decided upon after the event in a Court of law: however, your terminological inexactitudes are far too numerous to bother with unless they are central to the issue, so I just assume what you must have meant and continue) may or may not act.
It is therefore not the EXACT LEGALISTIC position that matters AT ALL - it is the individual's PERCEPTION (in a moment of likely tension or passion, having witnessed what they have) of the position, of rules, of sensitivities. And it is in that light, in the context of the discussion, that I answered your (again) inexact question.
The quality of your "legal advice" has already demonstrated that you must be given leeway in these matters... Hey, but I am accommodating!
We know it is old JW-technique (good TMS/km stuff) to take control, ask the questions, lead the other side on, etc. We all know and understand that, and why you must make it go that way! But I can win this argument any which way - even your way. Actually, I already won it all the other ways earlier up the thread - and in the Coffin thread - with a little help from my f iends!
I stated, in effect, that were a JW to witness a killing, then the thoughts that would go through the witnesses' mind re the reporting of their observation to the cops would be materially different if the perpetrator was known by the witness to be a fellow-JW than if the perpetrator was not a JW.
Nowhere did I state, imply or suggest that the witness JW would not report the killing were the perp to be a JW.
But the witness JW would be cognisant of "sensitivities" (local or organizational) involving the reporting to secular authorities (Satan's organization) of the actions of a fellow-JW, and might well consider (rightly or wrongly) that he was violating one of them.
Context makes it clear that it is the witness's perception that is what is being asked for: however arguably "reality" may be different, one is governed by one's perceptions and it is how the witness will act that is in question. In this case, the witness JW has no one to fall back on to check whether his perceptions are in accord with reality - to do so, he would be passing on the information of what he had observed on to a third party (and thereby losing any control), or be constructively lying.
It follows that he would be more likely to think about "what is the next step?" than if the perp was not a JW, when his reactions would be on autopilot.
I repeat that nowhere did I state, imply or suggest that the witness JW would not report the killing were the killer to be a JW.
If you asked me what the practical likely difference would be in conduct between the two cases - I think the witness would mull over what to do somewhat longer if the perp was a JW than otherwise. No more and no less than that.
If after this further clarification (necessitated only by the terminological and structural inexactitude of your question!) you still wish to run off, well.... who knows who will say what!
And may I remind both of us that the subject is "PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?"
Why not take this to Usenet as well? The Prominent Bethelite awaits you there, I am confident, and you can share your wisdom with a much wider audience than the miserable bunch here!
--
Focus
(Accommodating Class) -
waiting
Focus,
the miserable bunch here!
Well, that's not very nice, now is it? And I was just coming back with a response to Xandit about how I kinda understood your posts and thought you were cute.You sometimes are such a male fool.
waiting
-
Focus
Yoiks waiting:
The picture thing in my post after the "the miserable bunch here!" is called an "emoticon".
To be specific - it is a "winkie".
That means that:- I mightn't mean "it".
You newbies...
--
Focus
( Class)Edited by - Focus on 6 March 2001 7:30:15
-
Xandit
Yeah he's as cute as a warm bucket of spit.
-
Focus
It isn't funny how Friend has tried to derail this thread with his ultra-legalistic approach, predicated as it is upon his misunderstandings and misconstruals of law (though he is more accurate than most. Of course he protests he is only trying to help - but they always do, don't they?
As training from Theo Ministry School, km, the Reasoning book, older sisters (the 'seen-it-all' brigade) and so on informs the JW - he must take control of the discussion, maneuver it, set the agenda AND ONLY ASK THE QUESTIONS that suit him. So, Friend's misconduct is no surprise - but the audacity of his attempted diversion is noteworthy!
Friend wants us to believe that this question (reworded by me solely to reveal his agenda) is key:
"How would a rational, mature JW (after all, one who is properly familiar with ever-liable-to-change Watchtower diktats is called for) who is a detached witness to a third-party killing by a JW interpret Watchtower policy on involving secular authorities first?"
Absurdly irrelevant, as those with perception can see. Now let me make clear what IS the key question:
IS A JW CHILD, a VICTIM of PROLONGED, DEGRADING SEXUAL ABUSE by a JW ADULT, significantly LESS LIKELY than a non-JW child to WHISTLE-BLOW?
Given that:
(a) the potential reporter is a VICTIM and not a detached, relatively cool, rational observer - pedophiles do work in secret, and there are no witnesses (making Friend's key question irrelevant); and
(b) the victim is YOUNG and has perceptions of what is required of a JW that may well not be in accord with the official position, and formal Watchtower written policy is known by hearsay and observation to differ from practice on a lot of areas any way (making Friend's key question more irrelevant); and
(c) there is a strong perception, repeated many times, that a JW must do NOTHING that spoils the congregation's name or "brings God's name into reproach" (as the QFR I quoted evidenced: precise circumstances are irrelevant, the overriding concern is made clear therein) - which even a child realizes would follow after a pedophilia whistle-blowing (making Friend's key question still more irrelevant); and
(d) there is an equally strong perception that the duty is to inform the awe-inspiring elders (who know the pedophile: indeed, one of whom may well be the pedophile) of wrongdoing first, and not the secular (Satan's) organization (as the QFR I quoted also indicates, and making Friend's key question YET more irrelevant); and
(e) the child itself has fears, feels extreme guilt and shame (indeed, blames itself, as all studies show) and therefore views what would follow any investigation by the elder body with immense trepidation (frightening star-chamber JC excommunication proceedings, sexual interrogations etc. being the subject of frequent gossip amongst "the happiest people in the world") - possibly thinking (however wrongly) that it too will be cut off, and thrown out, and destroyed at Armageddon tomorrow (making Friend's question more irrelevant, if that were possible); and
(f) the pedophile JW will have made very sure the victim is aware of how vital it is to avoid damage to God's people ("this must remain our little secret, Susan" will have an added twist, inapplicable in non-JW cases); and
(g) it is the victim's perception that counts..I hold that the answer to MY question (the relevant one) is *YES*, the JW child is very significantly less likely to whistle-blow.
Thereby proving my contention: PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey.
Now, having read the relevant question, go back and view Friend's wholly irrelevant "question(s)", and - as he is not stupid - perceive his DISGUSTING AGENDA in attempting to derail things.
Ignore what he claims his motives are: I (and JT and others) have shown that the QFR I quoted was relevant, and I have no doubt that Friend knew that too. Friend knows a lot more than he lets on. His pretence that written policy supported him - and that on key matters written policy agrees with the unspoken - has been utterly refuted by, and discredited in the face of, the evidence I produced in the "Coffin" thread - ALL OF WHICH HE KNEW ABOUT (given his "position" to scan CO's forms) BUT WHICH HE WAS NOT GOING TO ADMIT TO!
As I said, the REAL enemy is the "ever so reasonable" F IEND CLASS.
Shameful. Truly shameful...
--
Focus
(Not Fooled One Tiny Bit. Class)TO KNOW ALL THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, VISIT :-
http://www.freeminds.org/history/part1.htm
http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
http://localsonly.wilmington.net/jmalik/TheList.zip
http://www.concordance.com/watchtower.htm
http://www.intrex.net/tallyman/the_list.html
http://www.3dom.freeserve.co.uk/main.htmEdited by - Focus on 6 March 2001 7:27:37
-
Tina
Greetings,
I found your key points both relevant and correct.
At the end of the day the issue boils down to the powerless(victims) and the powerful(elders,org.men)
The child's perceptions also create his/her reality...something they have to live with,which seems to escape friends notice.
All his legalistic manuveurs attempt to shield the fact that even the most basic human needs are violated(safety,security,health)regarding victims in the org. And this from an org that publicly declares itself 'a spiritual paradise' for it's members....
It's 'soul-murder' pure and simple.....when self-esteem, love,sense of competency,belonging,emotional safety,worth are violated in this manner.
So on the very fundamental level,these 'lambs' live not in a 'spiritual paradise' but in trauma,fear and desperation.
This has to stop. This starts by leaving off the excusogetics,getting in touch with humanity,,,,something I have yet to see from friends postings on the matter. (and not the 'lip service' I do see)......
JMHO anyway,Tina