by dunsscot 113 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Dear Joel,
Thanks for your fair and balanced presentation. You touched on points that I am genuinely concerned about. While I disagree with what I feel is your sexual preference, I think you are looking at matters more objectively than others on this list. One cannot necessarily say that a homosexual will automatically molest children if they are left alone with the said homosexual. Greenless may have been gay. I'm not sure that he was a molestor, however
Sincerely,
Dan
Duns the Scot
Dearest Dedalus:
:How astute of you! Hope you get an 'A' in your Into to Philosophy class.:
You'll be glad to know that I received 'A's' in my intro philosophy classes and in the myth classes I took.
:Seriously, I use to name-drop all of the Great Thinkers I had read, making as many eclectic allusions as possible. But that was freshman year, and as time wore on I tried to learn to come to the point without all the unnecessary verbiage. You might have decent ideas, but your sesquipedalian prattle sounds silly.:
I know its hard for those who circumambulate on the terra firma to apprehend how the mind of a philosopha works, but in all earnestness, I am not trying to impress anyone here. When I submit messages, I am oftentimes in the process of trying to formulate an idea and provide some type of philosophical backing for it. This requires going through the "files" of the mind in search of which philosopher posited what idea. That is why what appears like name-dropping is really just Geist in process.
Besto,
Dan
Duns the Scot
Duns,
Nice to see you back.
Let me address some of your points.
Emipirical proof: When you say you would accept solid evidence, I don't believe you. I don't say that out of malice for you or in a disregard for your reasoning abilities. I say that because the history of science is full of examples of those who rejected solid evidence because it did not fit their cognitive map. For example, Hans Eysenck published a classic paper demonstrating that psychotherapy was not effective. This was at a time when the only method of treatment was psychoanalysis and NeoFredian methods. There were howls of protest and major attempts to diminish the value of his research. After his very good work stood up under scrutiny, it did help percipitate the search for alternate treatment methods. One such method was initiated by Albert Ellis who started Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, which is far superior to Freudian psychoanalysis. Ellis originally was a Freudian and found out that Freud's methods didn't work. This is just one example of even good research being rejected because of a pre-existing mindset. A more recent example is the phenomena of repressed memories that are elicited by a therapist who believes a certain theory of the origins of neurosis. The research very strongly supports the conclusion that these memories are false, and cause great damage to the patient and the victims he/she accuses. I brought this up because it is germain to the subject in question.
Kant's remarks on theory: Certainly practice should be guided by a theory or framework to guide practice. However, I was only addressing the other side of the equation. I think that the theoretical framework with which you are operating is severly flawed, especially when it comes to the implimintation of rules and the breaking of those rules. A case in point is the heuristic that a witness to sodomy of a child has to be present before a case can be heard, ala, the scriptural rule. Most pedophiles don't bring along an audience. As with most crimes, experts need to look at physical and circumstantial evidence, which precludes the use of elders in the process (another flaw in your schema).
If you came here for help: I am sure you would receive it. For an example of such help, please review the several threads initiated by Troubled.
Side Note on Maslow: Although Maslow writes nice words, his theory of motivation has failed all attempts at verification (e.g., Porter and Lawler, and Aldefer) Both of these authors came up with better models. Aldefer's model, like Maslow's, is a needs model, while Porter and Lawler's is a cognitive model.
Dan:
I wasn't going to bother to answer any of your posts, or read them for that matter, simply because your attitude of superiority oozes out of your words and that, to me, has the effect of the sound of fingernails scratching on a chalkboard. Lovely sound isn't it? Frankly most of us don't care about whose words you are constantly quoting. Do you have an original thought at all?
I do hate sounding nasty, but you are a most irritating fellow and hopefully, if you've been told that often enough, it will sink in.
I decided to answer you anyway because you said:
If we're just going to accept every case of alleged abuse that comes along without any compelling evidence, what procedure would you implement to protect the innocent accused?
That would be a concern of mine as well but I'm sure the justice system is not going to just slap, all those accused, in jail without "compelling evidence". The courts do not hold to the " two witnesses" requirement of the borg. and many accused molestors have been investigated and proven guilty. Therefore I'm sure there will be enough "compelling evidence" for the courts to accept the testimonies of the victims coming forward.
Btw back to your vocabulary....I've personally known JWs who have left the truth because of elders who flaunted their vocabulary and "superior" knowledge as you do. I know that doesn't say much for their faith but that was just the "proverbial straw" that was the final breaker for them.
Imagine how difficult it would be for you to listen to an adult with the vocabulary of a 2 year old give a talk. Personally....that's how annoying your spoutings are to me and by the sounds of many other posters, I am not alone.
However, you replied to someone saying:
:If, someday, the WT ideology crashes for you. We will be here.:Thanks for the sincere offer. I really don't know how much help I could receive from this board if I needed it, however.
I'm not quite sure how you meant that. If you sincerely meant that you didn't think you would be welcomed here if that happened to you, you are totally wrong. You would be accepted by us without our rubbing dirt in your face. That's how we are here.
HOWEVER...if you were saying that no one here could be capable of giving any effective help needed...then again you are wrong. The people here have huge hearts and would welcome you back to give you the support and encouragement and knowledge you would need from your crash.
"That's all I have to say 'bout that"
Had Enough
Hey everyone, i have translated dunscott's posts into much more 'layman' english and you can view the translated posts here at this URL:
http://firefly.sparse.org/~mrt/cgi-bin/t.cgi?field=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyeneedle.com%2Fnew%2F
hehehehehe
-Dan
TINA SAYS
I'm sharing this w/ a psych prof I know. He found your other posts quite revealing as well. What a wall of denial you have constructed.
But like another poster thought,maybe your psyche is unable to
accept the harsh realities,so you remain in your rarified air of academic intellectualization. I feel for you.Sometimes denial is removed brick by brick. Once in a while,something just slams into it and knocks the whole thing to rubble. We know this-we've all been there. We'll be here for support when your wall cracks or falls. regards,Tina
You are one of the few posters who have in my view clearly addressee the issue of this dear bro -
while others have blasted him for using big words it realy refeals something about the clear struggle that he is facing
can you imagine havinga command of such big words and all of your friends are JW-it ,must be like working in a daycare centerwith 2 and3 yr olds
i really don't fault him for wanting to be here for here we get the old brain to excerising something in the Hall you don't do - for it ia all REPAEAT A I SAY ......
i LIKE YOU -FEEL FOR THIS MAN --THE struggle must be unreal and yes
the brick by brick is how one leaves wt
for most it is not one thing per say - it is the fact that the house of cards that yu have spent many times a life time building begins to start crumbling the minute you start to ask the FORBIDDEN QUESTIONS
PERSONALLY i can fully understand why wt tells JW like this dude to stay off the net - it reminds me of the movie sets at universal studios on the front it looks so real but when you go around the back there is nothing there -- DON'T PAY ANY ATTENION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN- Wizard of OZ mindset
so after awhile it becomes harder and harder to argue with facts and sound reasoning and then turn around and go to the hall and sit there and listen to what you know is a lie
this guy is well educated and he knows full well that the org that he is apart of is telling its yooung folks that a college education is useless
can you imagine if he took some of his fellow classmates to the service meeting the night that they did the part on
NOT GOING TO COLLEGE
they would look at him like __what in the hell are you apart of DUN
so in my view he s like a person about to commit sucide- the police know as long as they can keep him talking there is a chance
same with any jw who comes here--- i truly HATE THE STYLE OF MOST former jw when it comes to dealing with current jw- IT AIN'T LIKE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOIING TO SAY- SO WE SHOULD USE THAT knowledge to our advantage to help them
let them say whatever they want to - first off they cn't help it cause it is in the SOFTWARE PROGRAMMING smile
if you know that by puttting in the wrong PIN number for the third time- why are you surprise when you can't get your card back
same with jw- WE SHOULD ALL KNOW THE DRILL
anything said in a negative light about wt brings our the Defense troops- nothing new about that at all-in fact many of us were like that-
we are really in a great position,we know the WT Game and Play book by heart- but i find many rarely use that insider knowledge to thier advantage
my view has always been very simple
any jw that is willing to point his BRowser TO AN EJW SITE DAY IN AND DAY OUT is a jw on his way out the door-while there are some who don't and they usually are the OUTCAST IN THEIR HALL for this gives them some respect since they can't get it among thier own THEY CAN at least expect apoststes to give them a hearing ear -something they never get at the hall due to being OUTCAST
BUT IF a person comes to sites like this they are already showing signs of on their way out and the funny part is
THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT
SMILE
JAMES
the studendt
ful
Dunnscot.
I believe Silentlambs has a real case here. You make it sound like some sort of vendetta, fueled by hysteria over an emotional issue. Anytime the subject of child abuse comes up, especially sexual, there will always be an intense emotional response.
We'll probably never know the true numbers. I personally hope that there are far fewer cases than believed as I'm sure we all do. However, finding believed statistics reduced even one protected molester still leaves you with one-too-many molesters.
The judicial guidelines of the Witnesses "look good on paper" so to speak. Two or more witnesses is a thorough establishment of an incident. An "investigation" establishes both sides of the story, even if just one witness comes forth. Unfortunately, molestation is not something that takes place where witnesses are available. Then it becomes the word of a child against an adult. The policies that compel victims' families to keep the incident internal within the bounds of the congregation and that do nothing to protect the congregation's children must be brought to light and changed. I don't need numbers to tell me that, even if it only protects one kid it must be done.
mike.
dunnscot
I really want to ad hominem you but I just can't bring myself to doing it.
I strongly recommend that you withhold all further comments until the dateline show airs.
I urge you to understand TV news. Its about ratings. People don't watch TV in the summer. Why put on a hit when no one will watch.
Look for it next month or the next would be my bet but it is up to the news executives when and how they want to air the show.
When you see the show, them and only then start to research this issue by yourself (ie. don't listen to either side - you do the research).
Good luck and oh by the way change your writing style. You are not William F Buckley, nor, do I think you want to be associated with him.
hawk
Dear larc,
You write:
:Duns,
Nice to see you back.
Let me address some of your points.
Emipirical proof: When you say you would accept solid evidence, I don't believe you. I don't say that out of malice for you or in a disregard for your reasoning abilities. I say that because the history of science is full of examples of those who rejected solid evidence because it did not fit their cognitive map. For example, Hans Eysenck published a classic paper demonstrating that psychotherapy was not effective. This was at a time when the only method of treatment was psychoanalysis and NeoFredian methods.:
Thanks for the examples from the history of science. I appreciate your observations on Freud, and I concede your main point in some respects, for proofs are many times person-relative (what constitutes proof for a Marxist does not necessarily compel a capitalist). We also have to deal with confirmation bias and the issue of schemas as well as the points you discussed regarding cognitive mapping.
Nevertheless, I do not think it is sound to reason that just because you think I will reject some type of empirical proof you present, there is no use in putting forth such evidence. Until anyone here is able to provide corroborating evidence that provides sufficient warrant for his or her position, I will continue to think that the said claims about child abuse are for the most part "sound and fury." I do, however, sympathize with children who have really undergone such treatment at the hands of hypocritical ungodly men or women. My words are directed at those who foam at the mouth in hopes of subverting the power of the WTS.
:Kant's remarks on theory: Certainly practice should be guided by a theory or framework to guide practice. However, I was only addressing the other side of the equation. I think that the theoretical framework with which you are operating is severly flawed, especially when it comes to the implimintation of rules and the breaking of those rules. A case in point is the heuristic that a witness to sodomy of a child has to be present before a case can be heard, ala, the scriptural rule. Most pedophiles don't bring along an audience. As with most crimes, experts need to look at physical and circumstantial evidence, which precludes the use of elders in the process (another flaw in your schema).:
One clarification: I was "paraphrasing Kant," not quoting him. Kant's citation involves his thoughts on concepts and intuitions. But back to the discussion.
Pedophiles are nothing new, larc, as you well know. Even Scripture relates information about pederasty in Deuteronomy. Allusions to pedophilia are also contained in the first hexateuchal book (better known as Genesis). From a theological perspective, therefore, the Society's position may not be so unreasonable when viewed in the light of early Judaism. Then again, we may have to readjust our view vis-a'-vis certain forensic passages in the Bible. Nevertheless, I think you are trying to mingle legal and theological matters. In the humble opinion of this writer/typer, however, the best way to adjudicate a theological controversia is by utilizing theological methods. Bringing in the superior authorities improperly may cause unnecessary conflicts between Caesar and God. There are many issues one should carefully ponder before allowing the camel's nose to enter his or her tent.
:Side Note on Maslow: Although Maslow writes nice words, his theory of motivation has failed all attempts at verification (e.g., Porter and Lawler, and Aldefer) Both of these authors came up with better models. Aldefer's model, like Maslow's, is a needs model, while Porter and Lawler's is a cognitive model.:
I concur pretty much with your thoughts about Maslow. Nevertheless, the main point I was making is that our happiness in many ways depends on our internal state of being and our cognitive processes. No matter how pervasive evil external to our soma is, we are capable of creating positive inner worlds that result in positively-oriented external cosmoi.
Dan
Duns the Scot
[q]Dearest Dedalus:
:How astute of some T! I'm gonna hit you so hard I'm gonna knock you into next week! Hope You Foo get an 'A' in your Into to Philosophy class.:
BA Baracus'll be glad to know that darn Murdock received 'A's' in the crazy T's intro philosophy classes and in that darn myth classes Mr.T took.
:Seriously, the Faceman use to name-drop all of the Great Thinkers I had read, making as Helluva eclectic allusions as possible. But that crazy wuz freshman year, and as time wore on the crazy T tried to learn to come to the point without all some unnecessary verbiage. BA Baracus might have decent ideas, but your sesquipedalian prattle sounds silly.:
Murdock know its hard for those who circumambulate on the crazy terra firma to apprehend how the crazy mind of a philosopha works, but in all earnestness, Hannibal gonna not trying to impress anyone here. Hey man, This time we're gonna do it my way! When Mr.T submit messages, Mr.T gonna oftentimes in the darn process of trying to formulate an idea and provide Helluva type of philosophical backing for it. This milk better not have no sleepin' powder or nothin' in it. thems requires going through the darn "files" of the darn mind in search of which philosopher posited what idea. What! Idiot shot the tires on my van!!!! that darn is why what appears like name-dropping is gunna be really just Geist in process. Leave the man alone!
Besto,
Dan[/q]
Duns the crazy Scot
