Not a sympathizer (page 11)

GrreatTeacher

When the student is ready, the teacher will appear...

Well orphan crow. It is your opinion that watchtower is a high control organization. I don't buy into that theory. And you feel it is not a subjective thing, but you say it is an absolute fact. I am not going to argue with you because no matter what all it will devolve I to is an argument about that. I think that there are more important things to dwell on and you don't. Again that is your right to feel what is the most important thing to focus on.

OrphanCrow

Richard: And you feel it is not a subjective thing, but you say it is an absolute fact.

I was right. You do have a problem with terminology.

"Feel" has nothing at all to do with what I "think". My thinking on this matter is a rational process and "feeling" is an irrational process

I do not feel what I said - I think it

Richard Oliver

Orphan crow. If you want to call this a fact. Please provide me with a peer reviewed article that shows that someone with mental health education and expertise that states that watchtower is a high control organization. And to be clear a peer reviewed article would be in a journal that would be such as the Journal of the American Medical Association.

OrphanCrow

Richard, why do you need a peer reviewed article that specifically states that? Are you not capable of rationally analyzing this on your own? Can you not access a list of characteristics of a high control group and compare it to the WTS?

It is a simple exercise that does not require peer reviewed articles that directly speak of the WTS. There is plenty of information from recognized mental health professionals that lay down the parameters of what defines a high control group. You are fully capable of inserting "characteristics of a high control group" into your search engine and rationally choosing those sources that are attached to a mental health professional that has at least a PHD from a credible university

Just do a comparison. It isn't difficult - there is lots of available credible material that can be accessed for this exercise. It is a rational exercise, not an emotional one

I have been trying to understand my own involvement in your thread here, Richard. I normally don't bother to engage with these type of threads and the conclusion I came to as to why I have bothered to try to converse with you is that I am experiencing a feeling of compassion for you. And for others like you.

You are intelligent. You deserve to arrive at a place where you can use your intelligence to sever the emotional tie you have to the org. I propose to you that your attachment and defense of the org arises from your need for security and surety. The org's restrictive policies and apparent surety of future is what fills that emotional need you have for security. The org's black and white teachings and the rigid structure gives the illusion of security that satisfies you emotionally.

I look forward to the day that you, and others like you, feel safe enough to think on your own and that you will find your authentic self. And have the freedom to be that person.

Richard Oliver

Orphan crow.. I ask for a peer review article because you make it sound like it is a standard fact. And you have made it sound like it is a fact that watchtower is a high control organization. It is this well accepted fact you can present at least one peer reviewed article that says that. There are plefty of peer reviewed journals that discuss cults and high control organizations. So either it is an opinion that people have about it or it is a fact. If it is a fact there should be at least one professional who is willing to make the statement and have a group of their colleagues agree with them.

Diogenesister

Founded in 1984 the "Cultic Studies Journal" is a peer reviewed multi disciplinary scholarly Journal;

This from its website:

Groups listed, described, or referred to on ICSA's Web sites may be mainstream or nonmainstream, controversial or noncontroversial, religious or nonreligious, cult or not cult, harmful or benign.

We encourage inquirers to consider a variety of opinions, negative and positive, so that inquirers can make independent and informed judgments pertinent to their particular concerns.

This in a nutshell is what orphan Crow is trying to say, I believe.

Do Google the model's for high control groups and see for yourself if wtbts fits the model.

Richard Oliver

Orphan Crow: Your last statement does highlight again what a subjective analysis is and what an objective analysis is. Again, we may have different definitions for those two terms, and I provided you with the definition that I am using, which again are recognized definitions.

I used the analogy of weight to define my definition of objective and subjective information. A scale shows an actual fact which is objective, no reasonable person can dispute what the scale says. Though, the perception of if something is heavy or not, depends on a person's objective observation of the item.

You wrote this:

Richard, why do you need a peer reviewed article that specifically states that? Are you not capable of rationally analyzing this on your own? Can you not access a list of characteristics of a high control group and compare it to the WTS?

It is a simple exercise that does not require peer reviewed articles that directly speak of the WTS. There is plenty of information from recognized mental health professionals that lay down the parameters of what defines a high control group. You are fully capable of inserting "characteristics of a high control group" into your search engine and rationally choosing those sources that are attached to a mental health professional that has at least a PHD from a credible university.

The bold is my emphasis. You state that one has to take the information and decide if a group falls under the parameters of a high control organization. So an analysis has to be made of the parameters and the evidence that is being presented of the organization. But the key word that you used is "analyzing" that requires a person to take their own perceptions of a matter into account.

And here is a definition of analysis:

detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation.

And yes you are right analysis requires a detailed examination, but notice the last word in the definition that is interpertation. Interperterpation is therefor defined as:

to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance

So again it is subjective.

That is why mental health counseling can be such a tricky issue. We saw this in a posting just recently where a poster had an issue with the fact that their counselor feels that leaving Watchtower is a personal choice, I am sorry for not remembering the exact term that was used. But the point that I am making is, that if you put into a room 100 psychiatrist, psychologist and mental health counselors, and gave them the exact same scenario, you would probably get a wide variety of opinions as to the cause of it. There would certainly be some overlap in thought and diagnosis but you wouldn't get a universal consensus on all of the claims.

And again like I said earlier. If it would be a generally accepted fact in the mental health profession that Watchtower is a high control organization, there would be people in that profession who would say so in a journal article that has been reviewed and accepted by their colleagues.

Again I am not disputing that you and many other people feel that Watchtower is such, but again that is your opinion and you and everyone else is entitled to that. I never disputed that you and others may have been hurt by Watchtower. I never disputed that you may have felt that you were controlled by Watchtower. But those are your opinions and your feelings. I nor no one else can take those away from you, but you cannot claim that your opinion and your feelings are facts for anyone other than you, those are your facts those may not be the facts for someone else.

Finkelstein

So what are you trying to assert Richard, that the JWS religion doesn't damage or cause problems toward people who are gay. ???

Here's a fact to contemplate upon ...

There was has been instances of gay people who were brought up in the JWS from birth, only to realize they were gay as they matured but because of this they were strategically separated from their families, who out of despair and depression committed suicide.

Nice hey ???

Richard Oliver

Finkeinstein:

My point is that it is not a verifiable fact. It is an opinion based on people's perception and experiences. Again I repeatedly said that it does not take away how people feel. But how people feel and what their opinion is, does not mean it is a fact. It is a fact for them but doesn't mean it is a fact for anyone.

Also I now that people have committed suicide. I have suffered from deep clinical depression in the past and at times at present. And, again this is my opinion, it is not right to claim that a suicide is caused by one factor. Suicide is a horrible event that affects not just the one that loses their life but also their family and friends who rarely ever recover from that lost. I have known gay friends to have attempted to commit suicide and I have even contemplated it at on a few occasions. At times I contemplated it because I felt like a failure, at other times due to my sexuality and still at other times due to other struggles I was facing at that exact moment. And there is a New Zealand psychologist on this site, and I don't know him personally but I am sure he can attest that in his experience and in his studies that he has found that suicide or attempts of suicide is caused by a number of factors in a persons life. Please don't try and say that people commit suicide for the exclusive reason that they are either gay or a witness. There are a number of factors that play into that kind of dispair.

Not a sympathizer

Share this