Attn: SILENTLAMBS! ONE IN TEN mJW a PEDO!

by Focus 21 Replies latest jw friends

lastcall

Assuming your math is correct and all other experts hypthesis is correct. Does this mean that there are more pedophilliacs amongst jw's than in society in general?
I understand that the real problem is how this crap is handled and the prevailing attitude, and not that your typical jw is more or less likely to be a pedophilliac than any other person out there.
My basic q is this: Could you be "focusing" up the wrong tree? Not that your "facts" aren't interesting, but ultimately they (The math adding up to 1/10) amount to opinions. Where as known cases and how they've been handled due to the culture that exists there(JWville), are the only hard facts we have to deal with. Let's lay them bare with facts. Let's fry their butts with unbiased and irrefutable actual events. The real people are there. Let THEM keep telling their true stories. It leaves the water alot less murky.
Focus

lastcall wrote:
Assuming your math is correct and all other experts hypthesis is correct. Does this mean that there are more pedophilliacs amongst jw's than in society in general?
If by "more" you mean "a greater proportion of", then, WITHOUT A DOUBT, YES.
Little surprising this, since if I did not know better, I would believe that Watchtower policy and practise (written and unwritten) was specifically designed to encourage Pedophilia and attract Pedophiles!
If by "more" you mean "more", than NO, as jWs thankfully comprise only 0.1% of the world population.
I understand that the real problem is how this crap is handled and the prevailing attitude, and not that your typical jw is more or less likely to be a pedophilliac than any other person out there.
Dunno. Both are relevant, IMO.
If you are a loving parent, and your child had been moved into a religious movement by your "other half", would you not be more concerned if the proportion of pedophiles in the movement was many times higher than for society as a whole?
Would one wish to "Bible Study" with a group that had been identified as being a Pedo-Paradise (assuming that one was NOT a pedophile!)?
I agree that how they handle it is more important. But the fact that they mishandle it has contributed to the problem of there being so many jW pedophiles in the first place! See:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3035&site=3
entitled "Pedophiles are to the WTS as Flies are to Honey" and follow the links there, for a thorough fight on that issue.
My basic q is this: Could you be "focusing" up the wrong tree? Not that your "facts" aren't interesting, but ultimately they (The math adding up to 1/10) amount to opinions.
By that stick - your VERY EXISTENCE is just an opinion to me. I can make you disappear (for me). Note that I choose not to.
Where as known cases and how they've been handled due to the culture that exists there(JWville), are the only hard facts we have to deal with. Let's lay them bare with facts. Let's fry their butts with unbiased and irrefutable actual events. The real people are there. Let THEM keep telling their true stories. It leaves the water alot less murky.
I agree absolutely with you on this, lastcall!
The "1 in 10" figure is not one to push to the media. I cannot PROVE it in a mathematical sense.
It may help if you let me explain why I computed it.
I know Bill has many abuse cases on file - but my calculations (and the "1:10") indicate that it is not just the tip of the iceberg - it is only the tip of the tip.
That was the main value of my work, I think.
Getting the silent lambs to speak up in LARGE NUMBERS is going to be very, very hard. In addition to all the usual problems of pedophile-exposing, we have a more cowed-down population of kids (often beaten or terrorized into submission with the tacit or implicit approval of their "elder group") who have very limited (usually NIL) social contact outside the Watchtower and who have been brainwashed into ORGANIZATIONAL LOYALTY, NOT SPOILING jEHOVAH'S NAME and NOT REPORTING TO OUTSIDERS (let alone APOSTATES!) - "NEVER take your brother to court" etc. As well as, in many cases, the first signs of Mental Illnesses so prevalent in destructive, illogical, authoritarian mind-control Cults.
--
Focus
(Achar Class)
funkyderek

Other possibilities that are more likely than 1 in 10 male JWs being child abusers:
The figure of 23,720 is incorrect or refers to something other than the individual number of abusers known to the WTS.
The assertion that 90% of allegations are true is incorrect.
The percentage of cases that go unreported is much lower than 80%, possibly because of greater reporting among JWs than among the general public.
There is a real problem in the Watchtower Society. Sensationalising it by drawing unsafe conclusions from faulty reasoning will not help anybody. Concentrate on the real, known problems.
Focus

I was waiting for someone to come up with this one...
funkyderek wrote:
Other possibilities that are more likely than 1 in 10 male JWs being child abusers:
+adult +North America/Europe.
Now, the message threading and context and other statements made by you make it perfectly clear that you are implying that *I* have stated that 1 in 10 such people are child abusers!
Please, I never suggested that 1 in 10 were "CHILD ABUSERS". *YOU* BROUGHT IN THAT TERM!
Reading your - alas - ignorant ejaculation, I am compelled to ask:
funkyderek, do you actually know what PEDOPHILE means, before blundering in telling me I am sensationalizing things?
An elementary grasp of etymology would indiciate pedo + phile... "pedo" means pertaining to children. And what does the other bit mean, eh?
You **DO** know what "phile" means, right?
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. (c)2000.
pedophile .. An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.
Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary
pedophile .. one affected with pedophilia
pedophilia .. sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
Wordsmyth Online Dictionary
pedophile .. one who has an abnormal sexual desire for children.
Just to indulge you, and because I am careful before crushing some idiot or careless person - I checked on some larger, offline dictionaries too. I even looked for some Blarney Irish dictionaries, but there aren't any.
"It" always relates to attraction or desire, and not to actual action or abuse.
Get "it"?
i.e. NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THE DESIRE HAD TO BE PUT INTO ACTION FOR THE TERM "PEDOPHILE" TO APPLY.
Just because I am (say) strongly attracted to robbing banks (I am not, but just say) does NOT make me a bank robber. Until, and if, I do it.
The number of pedophiles is therefore expected to greatly exceed the number of child sex-abusers. Fear of the consequences or lack of opportunity may well deter most thinking pedophiles, or cause them to restrict their activities to borderline cases - OR TO SIMPLY FANTASIZE OVER PICTURES AND VIDEOS.
They are more likely to be attracted to organizations such as the Watchtower, for obvious reasons already mentioned by myself and by many others.
The Watchtower statistics quoted by Bowen relate wholly or almost wholly to individuals who have allegedly committed ACTUAL SEXUAL ABUSES against children.
My figure would be expected to be much larger. The 4:1 (i.e. 80%, as you expressed it) to 10:1 ratio (i.e. 91%) is partly based on this. Should I have spelled this obvious thing out? Not many will translate their desire into ACTION. And while the image-possession or trading type of activity is also illegal under many legal systems, and might well be classified by some as "child abuse" (though there was no contact with children), relatively few of these cases are detected or prosecuted (also contributing to the ratio).
SO, I AM *NOT* SENSATIONALIZING. THE WORST I AM ARGUABLY DOING *MAY* BE THAT I AM RELYING ON THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WORDS ACTUALLY MEAN ON THE PART OF THE PUBLIC - YOURSELF INCLUDED, SORRY - TO CREATE A NOTEWORTHY HEADLINE THAT IS, HOWEVER, UTTERLY TRUE.
Please repeat until understood:
IN THE DEFINITION OF A PEDOPHILE, NOWHERE DOES IT SUGGEST THAT THE DESIRE HAD TO BE PUT INTO ACTION
Again, I stand by my estimate that "ONE IN TEN" ADULT MALE jWs IN NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE IS A PEDOPHILE.
For those linguistically-challenged, I add that A FAR SMALLER PROPORTION are "Child sex abusers".
Sorry if you managed to confuse yourself. You owe me several apologies for your nonsense about "unsafe conclusions" and "faulty reasoning", your insolent advice to me to "concentrate" on things.
Were you an arrogant, dogmatic, pain-in-the-ass, know-it-all type of jW too? Merely curious. Educational how some here (no suggestion you are such a one) see so clearly all the flaws in the jWs but fail to remember what they were like when they had been jWs... Of course, I realize what sorts of responses this might encourage, so I will say no more.
A hint. When I think I have detected a relevant blunder made by someone else, rather than barging in abusing them I first carefully check (a) exactly what they said; and (b) their past record. The relevance of (b) is that if they have a history of blundering and being caught out, it is quite probable this too is a blunder (if it quacks like a duck...), so I need not take (a) to the n-th degree.
You may gain from perusing:
> http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3035&site=3
just in case you have blustering or filibustering - sorry, I mean a powerful rebuttal - in mind.
Far more importantly, the key thing is to EXPOSE THE WICKED WATCHTOWER. There is more than one way to skin a cat, however. Leave rigid conformity to the Watchtower Class, eh, please?
No offense meant by me. Focus on the upbuilding content of my message, and stop playing with yourself, Flunkyderek! Or next time, I may not be quite so "loving" (TM Watchtower) with you.
--
Focus
(Pussy Cat Class)
Edited by - Focus on 19 July 2002 7:44:39
funkyderek

funkyderek, do you actually know what PEDOPHILE means, before blundering in telling me I am sensationalizing things?

Yes, which is precisely why I didn't use the term. The alleged list of 23,720 names is not a list of people who are attracted to children, but those who have acted or are alleged to have acted on those desires. I used the term "child abusers" because that appeared to be what you mean by the term "pedophile", for example when you said "the vast majority of incidents of pedophilia", "For every pedophile who is known (whether or not convicted), there are 4 to 10 pedophiles who are not", "The number of pedophiles reported...alleged perpetrator". You didn't use the term "child abuser" even when that's clearly what you meant. It was not clear from your original post that the 4:1 ratio was that of pedophiles to known or alleged abusers. It appeared to be a ratio of unknown abusers to known or alleged abusers. Perhaps you should have made that clearer.
Your patronising tone is not appreciated, and the racial slur just makes you seem desperate.
Far more importantly, the key thing is to EXPOSE THE WICKED WATCHTOWER.
No it isn't. The key thing is the truth. Trying to make the Watchtower look worse than it is by number manipulation is self-defeating.
teejay

Thank you Focus for clearing up a very important point.
A bigger thanks should go to FunkyDerek. Excellent post.
If Focus' definitions accurately define the word "pedophile / pedophilia", the Watchtower's list of 23,000+ names is not a list of pedophiles, per se, but a list of alleged or known "child abusers." I hope Bill B is reading this. He might be able to say that there's half a million (or more) pedophiles living among the Jehovah's Witnesses. A truly scary thought.
aluminutty

Focus:
Apparently, Focus means ***Kicking Arse and taking names***!!! Thank you. Now, if we could only insite the lothesome and braindeade witnesses out there -- some of whom are even parents -- in to acting on the information people such as you have provided. Call me reactionary, hasty even, but my son will *NEVER* so much as tread a toe upon the threshold of a kingdumb hell, at least until he has reached the age of majority. You know what, I would make the same statement if the actual risk was less than 1 tenth of what you claim. As I see it, it's simple. I love my Son, I don't want him child raped, as was my xJW wife, by some sick ass JW perv under the watchful eye of bethell's dirty little list. And as a parting rejoinder to all of you, puke puke puke, crotch Tower apologists out there who would rather wait on Jehovah than get off of your fat lazy arses and do something, may you enjoy spending eternity on your self-imposed pedofile paradise earth.
Focus

funkyderek wrote:
>funkyderek, do you actually know what PEDOPHILE means, before blundering in telling me I am sensationalizing things?
Yes, which is precisely why I didn't use the term. The alleged list of 23,720 names is not a list of people who are attracted to children, but those who have acted or are alleged to have acted on those desires. I used the term "child abusers" because that appeared to be what you mean by the term "pedophile"
"that appeared to be what you mean"
I guess from that further bit from you that you are unwilling this time around to quietly admit to your earlier oversight, and now you unwisely choose to defend the indefensible.
Hint: If I say "pedophile" I mean "pedophile". If I say "child abuser" I mean "child abuser". If I say "sexual abuser of a child" I mean "sexual abuser of a child".
I won't say "Quite simple, if you put your mind to it".
Many others may be less precise. It is in my nature to be precise. When I fail to so be, I try to be the first to apologize.
The definition of "pedophile" which I used (and which is the ONLY one) had already appeared in this thread, in my reply to another poster. Perhaps, you missed it.
THE DATABASE TO WHICH BILL REFERS *IS* A LIST OF (alleged) PEDOPHILES, AS ALL SEXUAL ABUSERS OF CHILDREN ARE PEDOPHILES (to sexually abuse, they must have WANTED to abuse). IT IS ELEMENTARY LOGIC.
A statement is NOT wrong simply because a more exact statement could have been made instead. To say "I am a living thing" is not wrong simply because I could alternatively say "I am a human being".
Please, do meditate on it, because it is the key to your misunderstanding.
Given what you wrote in the first instance, I would wager that THE THOUGHT NEVER EVEN CROSSED YOUR MIND that pedophilia and "sexual abuse of children" were two different things. A simple boo-boo, admission of which should not be painful. No matter. And perhaps I am wrong, your insight on this matter was towering and you chose to hide it beneath a bushel of miracle wheat.
You came in levelling a number of accusations against me. You did not bother to stop and think "hmmm, maybe this Focus is not a complete 'twat'; maybe there is a point to these hours of work; maybe I should think first and post later: maybe I should check to see his other posts on j-w.com".
You didn't use the term "child abuser" even when that's clearly what you meant.
Wrong again. Your "clearly" just suggests you may be confused and/or blustering.
AND YOU CONTINUE TO BE INEXACT in your terminology, even at your second post when most people would be rather more on guard! A responsible adult who grossly over-disciplines a child, say, will be viewed by most as a "child abuser". But you mean a "sexual abuser of a child", which is something else beside, DON'T YOU? And if you don't mean that, then you should be meaning that. And if you do mean that, you should use that - in the absence of a clear reason not to - and not use some term which is far broader in scope and application. So, let us assume that wherever you talk about "child abuse" you actually mean "sexual abuse of a child".
I REPEAT THAT PEDOPHILIA IS A TENDENCY, A DESIRE, A WANT (as you would expect from its derivative term, "pedophile")
The phrase "-philia" indicates "a love of or desire for". Opposite of "-phobia", sort of.
Let us classify pedophilia (of course there are going to be gray areas), ignoring considerations of frequency and habituation:
(I) Some instances of pedophilia involve direct=physical sexual abuse of a child. No need for a "for example".
(II) Some instances of pedophilia involve other sexual abuse of a child. For example, viewing or trading in "illegal" images. Perhaps no child was "harmed" in any way in making them (??), perhaps depending on jurisdiction and mildness it is not an indictable offense, in which case it just may be best viewed as a type III pedophilia.
(III) Some instances of pedophilia do not involve any sexual abuse of a child at all. For example, fantasizing about imagined type I activities. This cannot be indictable in the civilized world. It does not mean that pedophiles who indulge in only type (III) conduct may not pose a threat - the tendency may lead to action, IF THE OPPORTUNITY ARISES.
Perhaps you should have made that clearer.
I confess to entrapment. I was waiting for someone to make the error, to illustrate the point. You did. Understandings gained therefrom are most clearly etched in the minds of the reader. These discussions are for others to see later - you and I just have our minor roles to play, don't we? Sorry, I guess you served as a foil. Thank you for providing the opportunity for others to consider the issue.
I am sure you are intelligent (I have checked out your other posts). All intelligent persons make mistakes. I make mistakes. No inference to be drawn from the last sentence. EVEN THE WATCHTOWER MAKES MISTAKES!
Your patronising tone is not appreciated, and the racial slur just makes you seem desperate.
Sorry for being patronising.
BUT - what racial slur????
I wished to make sure that the term "pedophile" did not have any extra connotation or slang-meaning in your neck of the woods. I am careful. Once before, someone accused me of suggesting they were menstruating when I asked them not to "lose their rag" (which means "lose their temper") or similar! It is all in the j-w.com archive.
While I am used to fools rushing in thinking they have caught me out (no implication for you, as you are not a fool), I'd hate to actually be wrong. So I sought a contrary definition of "pedophile" from a colloquial Irish source. Sites like www.onelook.com and many others provide lists of dictionaries including regional and slang ones.
For others: Blarney is a colloquialism referring to the linguistic skills imparted by the Blarney stone, which (according to the American Heritage online dictionary) "imparts powers of eloquence and persuasion.". HARDLY A SLUR AT ALL, LET ALONE A RACIAL ONE!!
Not that I even applied the term Blarney to you, but to Irish dictionaries of English usage (and I failed to find any).
To claim this is a "racial slur" is so absurd I won't get offended by it! I guess if I use the word "green" somewhere that'll be a "racial slur"? What about "singing"? And I think Irish lasses are beautiful. What about that?
>Far more importantly, the key thing is to EXPOSE THE WICKED WATCHTOWER.
No it isn't. The key thing is the truth.
That repartee from you shows you are intelligent but also shows you employ methods of argumentation that I would shun. Since you have tried to take some "moral high ground" here, that last observation is pertinent.
The context you (deliberately?) snipped and discarded showed that my words "Far more importantly" applied to a comparison with my arguing semantics with you, when we both know you had made a mistake, and not to anything else. My words immediately prior to "Far more importantly" were:
When I think I have detected a relevant blunder made by someone else, rather than barging in abusing them I first carefully check (a) exactly what they said; and (b) their past record. The relevance of (b) is that if they have a history of blundering and being caught out, it is quite probable this too is a blunder (if it quacks like a duck...), so I need not take (a) to the n-th degree.
You may gain from perusing:
> http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3035&site=3
just in case you have blustering or filibustering - sorry, I mean a powerful rebuttal - in mind.
So I was comparing the importance of arguing with you (both of us knowing you made an error - yep, I "guessed" back then you would not back off) with "EXPOSING THE WICKED WATCHTOWER". The latter still wins. Sorry.
TRUTH and NOTHING BUT TRUTH was always a "given". THE WHOLE TRUTH is harder to achieve, as it is subjective, but one tries. So it did not need to be stated as being "key", in just the same way as saying "Water is wet" was not "key".
Your selective snipping produces a misleading impression. 'Nuff said.
Trying to make the Watchtower look worse than it is by number manipulation is self-defeating
I am not "number-manipulating" in the pejorative sense in which you appear to mean the term, and I do not try to make the Watchtower look worse than it is. IMO it is probably not possible for the Watchtower to look that much worse than it is, but that is grist for another mill.
Enough. If you still think I am "sensationalising", "drawing unsafe conclusions", using "faulty reasoning", [helping nobody], unfocussed, performing misleading "number-manipulating" etc., then I am unqualified to assist you with your quest for knowledge any further.
SUMMARY
I am unaware of having made any error or misstatement at all in this thread.
Therefore, I still believe that the figure of "1 in 10" adult male jWs in North America and Europe being pedophiles is statistically supported by the evidence so far. That is not to say it is "correct", just that there seems to be about as much indication that the true figure is higher as there is that it is lower.
I repeat that the proportion who have sexually abused a child is probably much smaller.
I am happy to bury the figurative hatchet at any time (and preferably not in you), funkyderek, as my point has been made, and this little contretemps will have made it interesting enough to ensure quite a few read and understand the subtleties that even you apparently missed the first time around.
If, OTOH, you believe I exaggerate or improperly manipulate data, I helpfully direct you to:
> 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
etc., where you can examine a body of my work that is relied upon by many, who will doubtless thank you if you show them it is unreliable and should be taken off their websites.
The "correction" has been provided in the properly loving (TM Watchtower) way. Please do not sulk.
I may not be quite as much of a fool as you ................................ think I am.
--
Focus
(Unfunky but very Green Class)
Edited by - Focus on 19 July 2002 15:45:45
Focus

Hi teejay! Greetings to the Matt. 5:9 Class, and thanks! And, in case it is not clear, I thank funkyderek too for his part. You have witnessed a couple of these little dramas before, with the apparently snoozing pussycat with claws sheathed being awakened... (paraphrasing unclebruce there - always dangerous, lest that hoary old Koala-Fondler come and join us)
If Focus' definitions accurately define the word "pedophile / pedophilia", the Watchtower's list of 23,000+ names is not a list of pedophiles, per se, but a list of alleged or known "child abusers."
They are not "my" definitions! Yes, I know what you mean. The definitions are right and there are no ones that I could find that were more restrictive ones.
Notwithstanding your "per se", the database IS a list of pedophiles specifically, ones who further progressed to actual "sexual abuse of children".
I hope Bill B is reading this. He might be able to say that there's half a million (or more) pedophiles living among the Jehovah's Witnesses.
I hope he doesnt use any such figures! It would rely on assuming something like:
(a) the 10:1 undetected:detected ratio being the right one I think the 4:1 ratio is more like it. Note that to have been detected, it almost certainly must have been actual child abuse (whether or not there was physical contact). This is the scaling-up factor from thoughts and desires to actions.
AND
(b) the ratio of pedophile:non-pedophile jWs outside North America and Europe being as high as it is within that region. I would guess it was lower (just a guess!!), for a whole variety of reasons which I will leave to others.
Taking (a) as 4:1 and (b) as 30% lower, it works out to an estimate of 200,000 jWs worldwide who are pedophiles (NOTE! ONLY SOME OF THESE WOULD HAVE "PROGRESSED" TO BE ACTUAL SEXUAL ABUSERS OF CHILDREN).
A truly scary thought.
And it still is!
--
Focus
(Horror Class)
Focus

aluminutty wrote:
Apparently, Focus means ***Kicking Arse
No, no! I was gently snoozing after some hard work when my tail was rudely tweaked. I was not really lying in wait! Drat that misleading thumbnail - how do I get rid of it?
if we could only insite the lothesome and braindeade witnesses out there -- some of whom are even parents -- in to acting on the information people such as you have provided.
"Opening the Closed Mind".
Very, very hard to do, and, sadly, usually uneconomic, except where loved ones are concerned.
I focus on prevention of this disease (that masquerades as a religion) spreading further, getting to them before they get brainwashed - even before they get the knock. LOUD HEADLINES do that - supported by lots of facts. Only the truth.
I sympathize with what you have obviously endured. And protect your son!
as a parting rejoinder to all of you, puke puke puke, crotch Tower apologists out there who would rather wait on Jehovah than get off of your fat lazy arses and do something, may you enjoy spending eternity on your self-imposed pedofile paradise earth.
To find such an odious and insidious one, who claimed there was no deterrent at all to young jWs from going to the police about being abused by another jW, please see my "Friend" in:
> http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3035&site=3
Have a puke-bowl handy.
--
Focus
(Aluminum POTTY! Class)

Attn: *SILENTLAMBS*! ONE IN TEN mJW a PEDO!

Share this

Attn: SILENTLAMBS! ONE IN TEN mJW a PEDO!