Posts by cognizant dissident

Yeah, that's all well and good Ziddina, except it has nothing to do with the actual topic of this thread. Because if you go back and read all of the three threads White Dove started on this topic (why? was one not enough?), you will see that the man never actually asked her to have sex on the first date, never mind sex in a public park.

All he did was ask her to meet her at the duck pond in the park and she wanted to meet at Starbucks and they got into an argument about where to meet and he was a bit rude and inconsiderate.

A few people suggested he really wanted to meet her in the park for a quickie of oral sex and convinced her that was his real motive and then he emailed her with a very polite apology saying he was sorry and had no intention to cause any harm and she emailed him back saying his behaviour in insisting they meet at the park was a bit sleazy and unethical.

From there it snowballed into many just assuming he truly did ask her to have sex in the park and what a criminally perverted sexual deviant he probably was and maybe other people should be warned. Then a few of us pointed out that perhaps this was taking it a bit too far and was a little overly dramatic and then the subject suddenly got changed to whether it is wise for women to meet strange men for oral sex in a public park on the first date and wasn't that just a bit whorish? WTF?

Not one person ever suggested it was a smart thing to do. That was not the original subject. Way to throw in a red herring off topic. Because the real topic of this thread is: was this guy a complete sleaze bag for inviting her to the park for a first date, or was he just inconsiderate? Well, none of us will ever know because she didn't go. End of! So why keep speculating and dredging up the drama?

But then that's kind of the modus operandi of drama queens and kings everywhere, isn't it? When the voices of reason try to provide a calming balanced perspective, it is necessary to escalate the drama level by adding new volatile topics to the mix, such as: How can you naive people suggest that it is OK for any woman to meet a complete stranger for sex in a public park on the first date?

The only problem is, nobody ever did suggest such a thing. Including the man in question. At least not on this thread.

209

Sleaze Update...

by White Dove in

email exchange just a minute ago:.

him: "i just wanted to let you know that i never had any intention of causing any harm.

and i apologize for anything that seemed that way.".

cognizant dissident

I am many things, but I am not naive. As a student of psychology, I'm sure you're aware of the concept of projection?

I think credible studies have shown that most men and women do have sex on the brain most of the time. That's just part of being human.

Lady Lee, I did not see one person on this thread tell White Dove that she should ignore her instincts and meet the guy in the park, including myself.

It was simply pointed out that there was no need to add layers and layers of dramatic scenarios after the fact and project them on to the guy without any evidence whatsoever. It WAS others who started this and White Dove appeared to be buying into them quite readily. Her subsequent posts give evidence of that.

A few of us wanted to offer a more balanced perspective and look at it from the other person's perspective. Is it "mean" to call someone a drama queen (shame on you NVL!). Perhaps, but in my opinion, it's also "mean" to tell a professional person in the community, who has a reputation to protect, that his behaviour is a bit sleazy and unethical when all he did was ask you to go for a walk in the park. Project your own fears much? The greater harm was done to him in my opinion.

It is just my opinion. I call em like I see em.

58

ex-elders, present elders, and sexual abuse survivors or their families

by Lady Lee in

help needed on this thread.

lady lee- who are you, and what's your story?.

madjw thinks the wts' policy is sufficient to deal wtih cases of sexual abuse of children.

cognizant dissident

Grandma Jones: There is a fair amount of arguing and debating on this forum, but that's OK. That's the price you pay for freedom of thought and speech. We can argue and debate hotly with someone on an issue on one thread and then agree with them on another subject on another thread.

We can learn something from another viewpoint or we can agree to disagree and still remain friends. Or frankly, perhaps some don't really like each other that much. That's OK too. That's life outside the JW world where everyone does not have to pretend to agree, smile and nod all the time and pretend to love each other when they clearly don't.

There is a big difference between hotly debating a subject and nasty character assassination and personal attacks. Not that we have not all been guilty of getting pissy or personal at some point when the topic got hot, myself included. Lady Lee is a long time poster with a well respected history on this forum whereas Titus is a short term poster with a reputation for stupidity.

Now he's been called on it and has to take responsibility for what he said. The people have spoken!

209

Sleaze Update...

by White Dove in

email exchange just a minute ago:.

him: "i just wanted to let you know that i never had any intention of causing any harm.

and i apologize for anything that seemed that way.".

cognizant dissident

OK, I am going to say this one more time and one more time only, with no extra explanations or sarcasm that might confuse you:

HE NEVER ASKED YOU TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM IN A SECLUDED PARK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY! YOU MADE THE WHOLE THING UP IN YOUR MIND!!!!!

OK, Coggy, just take a deep breath and back away from the keyboard! So, NVL, fancy a walk around the duck pond with me? I think I need a little fresh air.

209

Sleaze Update...

by White Dove in

email exchange just a minute ago:.

him: "i just wanted to let you know that i never had any intention of causing any harm.

and i apologize for anything that seemed that way.".

cognizant dissident

Wow, some people get so angry when others don't agree with their perceptions of a situation. I guess that's the risk you take when you throw a subject out there for discussion on a public discussion forum.

Personally, I don't see a huge difference between telling someone their behaviour was sleazy and a bit unethical and saying they are sleazy and unethical.

OK, Making up a bunch of very dramatic scenarios as to what a person "really" meant when he asked you to meet him in the hot park in the middle of the day, doesn't make you a drama queen. Maybe a drama princess....

58

ex-elders, present elders, and sexual abuse survivors or their families

by Lady Lee in

help needed on this thread.

lady lee- who are you, and what's your story?.

madjw thinks the wts' policy is sufficient to deal wtih cases of sexual abuse of children.

cognizant dissident

Lady Lee: You don't owe anyone an explanation of why you committed adultery or left your husband. It's none of their f*****g business. Some men don't deserve faithfulness. Your husband broke his marriage vows when he hit you and from that point on you were free. The first punch ends the contract in my book. So good for you!

There, did I do that without addressing you know who?

209

Sleaze Update...

by White Dove in

email exchange just a minute ago:.

him: "i just wanted to let you know that i never had any intention of causing any harm.

and i apologize for anything that seemed that way.".

cognizant dissident

I think White Dove should trust her instincts too, which would entail not meeting the guy in the park, which she didn't.

However, to go beyond that and start postulating all these speculative theories about him and then start repeating them as facts, is beyond protecting oneself. The advice some were giving her about checking out his work place and warning other women, was just nuts and stalkerish. He would have a legal case for slander if she were to do that.

It's the lack of balanced perspective that I was protesting, not women protecting themselves.

19

People of the Lie

by Farkel in

this topic was inspired by another recent thread started by ak jeff.

the excerpt below is from the book "people of the lie", by the late m. scott peck, who also authored the best-seller "the road less traveled.

" "people of the lie" is about the nature of evil, and dashed all my previously held notions about what evil was.. you would do yourself a favor if your attention span is long enough to take the time to read this, because as you do, i want you to relate what is being said directly to the leaders of the watchtower society, past and present.

cognizant dissident

I believe in good and evil but not the concept of sin which to me implies some sort of external morality imposed upon us that we "should" be attaining but are missing.

Which leaves us with with problem of how to define evil without some sort of external morality or God. I have basically defined it the same as you which is destructiveness or harm to another person. I guess whether the evil is intentional or not would speak to whether you can define the person as evil or just the action.

Intentionality does necessitate some awareness on the part of the person. However I can see your argument for consistency. Because a person can be consistently destructive to others with intention but without awareness that it is evil. Perhaps they honestly believe it is OK, might makes right? I think I've met people like this, who are fooling themselves. But who can say for sure what level of awareness of evil and its consequences a person conceals inside? I think that is the real conundrum for society. We see the dilemma when we try to sentence juveniles or mentally ill people fairly, when they have committed horrendous crimes, intentionally, and seemingly without remorse. We know evil action when we see it, yet we hesitate to label the people such. At what level of awareness does responsibility come?

Perhaps the best we can hope for is to base judgements solely on actions and err more on the side of protecting society, not the individual committing the evil.