Bobby, isn't it great to be able to freely speak your mind on this forum without fear of having your messages deleted for posting arguments counter to those of the majority here?
UK IndependentUK Commission on Child Sexual Abuse possible new, separate inquiry into JWs
by Lostandfound 38 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Bobby2446
lol every site owner reserves the right to determine what speech is acceptable or not, so I abide by those rules, or I don’t join.
So to directly answer you, no.
-
Sanchy
site owner reserves the right to determine what speech is acceptable or not
Indeed. Here you have ability to post your counter arguments, and it is obvious that you welcome doing so, even if it means directly disobeying the GB's direction on "arguing with apostates".
Its ok though, your speech is "acceptable" here.
-
Bobby2446
I guess my “disobedience” is just as glaring as your hypocrisy in faking like you’re a “faithful” brother on the “Jwtalk” forum you told me about.
Yeah I read your fake posts on the public forum, but don’t worry, I won’t create an account there and rat you out, though I should.
-
Sanchy
I won’t create an account there and rat you out, though I should.
Not only are you disobeying the GB, but now also guilty of lying. You dont need to "create an account" there. You already have one.
You also lied the other day when you claimed not to be affiliated with Opposers Dismythed and JWs Understood, which you are.
-
Bobby2446
I have no reason to lie. You, however, are caught dead to rights.
I guess I am “Bob” the apparent owner of that site as well, since we all have the same username. Or I am “Bob” who is on Facebook too. You are just throwing something against the wall because you are caught.
At any rate, this is off topic. Believe what you want.
-
Sanchy
You might not be the owner of said sites then, but you are the same Bob I'm referring to. I understand why you'd want to deny that though. Dont worry, I wont rat you out.. You are right though, we are getting off topic, so to address one of your previous arguments:
The ARC surely did not result in charges being brought against any GB member nor a membership reversal
True. Though it was not the purpose of the Royal Comission to "bring charges" on the GB, or any other religious identity, but rather to inquire into institutional responses to child abuse, report findings and put forth recommendations. It is a strawman argument for you to continue referring to the lack of criminal charges brought forth as some sort of absolvement for the org when it comes to their many mishandlings and subsequent cover ups of child abuse.
The comission's findings confirmed the failures of the org in adequately responding to child abuse in its summary:
"We do not consider the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to be an organisation which responds adequately to child sexual abuse. We do not believe that children are adequately protected from the risk of sexual abuse for the following reasons..."
-
Bobby2446
My “charges” comment was more in reference to JWsurvey contributors sensationalize comment of the GB being charged with a crime as a result of IICSA.
IISCA also is merely a legislative hearing as as well. It’s simply stupid and asinine to even suggest that anyone can be charged with a crime without any proof of a crime, by a body that isn’t a judicial body, that has NO POWERS other than to make suggestions/recommendations to lawmakers.
Also the ARC was not a court case either, with no standards of evidence, even revisiting cases long adjusdicated in court.
So do not be surprised if I take the ARC findings with grain of salt.
-
Sanchy
My “charges” comment was more in reference to JWsurvey contributors sensationalize comment of the GB being charged with a crime as a result of IICSA.
This is not JWSurvey. Your perceived notion of "sensationalized" headlines has no bearing on the fact that the organization is guilty of mishandling decades worth of countless child abuse cases, and that it has made an effort to cover up that fact.
To focus on other non-issues is irrelevant.
-
Bobby2446
Prove it in court. Not in legislative public hearings. No rational person would doubt That there have been mishandlings, but once you or anyone can improve a deliberate cover up in a court of law, then come talk to me.