Posts by dunsscot

113

Silentlambs and Signifiers that Signify Nothing

by dunsscot in

call me a neopositivist, a semi-verificationist or semi-falsificationist, but the claims made by "silentlambs" reminds me of the shakespearean line that was quoted in the creator book published by the wtbts.

that is, the contentions of silentlambs seem like much "sound and fury" that in truth signify nothing.

i am of course referring to the supposed dateline show and the claims made about some members of the gb of jehovah's witnesses.

dunsscot

Dear larc,

I repectfully submit that we will never see matters eye to eye because we are approaching the problem with two wholly different sets of preunderstandings. Furthermore, while I am looking at matters theologically, you choose to trust in secular methods to solve congregational problems. I disagree, and there is no use trying to convince you otherwise at this time.

:On the criminal side, I don't think that the offender should be free from criminal prosecution, because he confessed and is reprentant.:

Maybe he should not. The issue requires more study IMHO. But you do not seem to be in a position to offer us a suitable THEOLOGICAL alternative at this point.

:On the side of being accussed, I don't think someone should be disfellowshipped because of a false accusation. I think that this whole mess should be sorted out in the court system with trained professionals. The reason that the Society does not want this, is not their search for justice. It is because they don't want the publicity.:

I think you're wrong and assert that which you cannot possibly substantiate. The Society is trying to use Scripture to deal with real life problems, whether you agree with the WT or not. Asseverations like those you spout above do not contribute to further understanding or productive dialogue.

:Remember one fact of organizational life: the organization is more important than the individual.:

I believe there is actually a symbiotic relationship between the individual and the organization. In other words, there is a dialectic interplay between the two modes of being as they vitally subsist for one another.

Lastly, I'll note that I am amazed at the intolerance I've witnessed discussing this issue. If one takes issue with Silentlambs' modus operandi, he or she is evidently greeted with argumentum ad hominem for the most part or utterly dogmatic pronouncements.

Sincerely,
Dan

Duns the Scot

113

Silentlambs and Signifiers that Signify Nothing

by dunsscot in

call me a neopositivist, a semi-verificationist or semi-falsificationist, but the claims made by "silentlambs" reminds me of the shakespearean line that was quoted in the creator book published by the wtbts.

that is, the contentions of silentlambs seem like much "sound and fury" that in truth signify nothing.

i am of course referring to the supposed dateline show and the claims made about some members of the gb of jehovah's witnesses.

dunsscot

Dear Had
Enough,

:Please....don't think that we are all of such low "lynch mob" mentality that we will settle for only a simple accusation ourselves. To fight so strongly against this cause without even first hearing the evidence does a great injustice to those victims suffering in silence for so many years. Put yourself in the place of a parent whose child accuses someone and exhibits evidence of being molested only to be silenced by unqualified men following orders from the WTS. Could you then protect and support this org?:

When have I tried to protect the organization here? I simply asked for evidence and, since none seemed to be forthcoming, I pointed this fact out to certain interlocutors participating in this thread: Duns is not fighting against anyone. Why, I've even admitted that we (JWs) may have to change our policy one day. But logic and Scripture must dictate our decision (not hysteria, innuendo, or embellishing statements).

:Several of the elders in one previous congregation I attended barely finished grade 8 education...How can they be expected to have the insight to deal with such complex issues? I know that wisdom doesn't always have to come from a book...some have a gift of reasoning...but I know from experience that most uneducated men do not know how to treat people with deep emotional or physical problems.:

I'm not saying that elders should try to treat people with "deep emotional problems or physical problems." My remarks have to do with the spiritual dimension that motivates congregation elders to adjudicate cases in the way they do. There appears to be a place for psychologists and therapy where circumstances necessitate such remedial efforts. But a child who comes home depressed after visiting Brother Moe and Sister Sally does not necessarily have to be rushed off to see Dr. John.

:We here all want the whole truth... the real truth to come out. It serves no purpose to any of us to have the WTS fall because of lies. The REAL truth is for what we all so desperately strive.:

I think that you think you want the real truth to come out. Our treacherous hearts (our sinful unconscious motivations), however, may deceive us if we are not careful. The masters of suspicion (Freud, Nietzsche, and Marx) have warned us about the subconscious forces that motivate our behavior.

:What I object to is your seeming generalization of those of us posting here as boozing, promiscuous degenerates. So what if some like to indulge in the old scotch bottle and some lead a different lifestyle that what you or I or many others of us prefer. Some even just joke about it to have fun, but don't live like that.:

My statement must be read en toto and in context. I did not write that every person on this forum boozes it up. We know that there are at least some ethical men and women on this board. Please notice that the Scot also mentioned some believe in evolution or adhere to the tenets of Christendom here. I did not say every man and woman posting on this board is guilty of fornicatin' or drankin'.

:To insinuate that we here have a mob mentality that peers at the bottom of a scotch bottle, insults me to the very core.:

Reread the comments I made to dedalus. Duns is not guilty of argumentum secundum quid. He normally does not generalize when it comes to autonomous rational agents.

:Please before dismissing all that has been said about the upcoming exposure of the WTS, wait and take the time to hear all evidence. To downplay what some have expressed as their own experience, is an injustice to the years of pain and suffering they have gone through. Don't so easily dismiss their outcries until you have at least listened to their "proof".:

I am not dismissing outcries. The present typer just thinks the problem may be exaggerated. Furthermore, the innuendo put forth about Sydlik is not particularly helpful to your case. But I'll wait until Dateline airs their special and work from there.

Sincerely,
Dan

Duns the Scot

113

Silentlambs and Signifiers that Signify Nothing

by dunsscot in

call me a neopositivist, a semi-verificationist or semi-falsificationist, but the claims made by "silentlambs" reminds me of the shakespearean line that was quoted in the creator book published by the wtbts.

that is, the contentions of silentlambs seem like much "sound and fury" that in truth signify nothing.

i am of course referring to the supposed dateline show and the claims made about some members of the gb of jehovah's witnesses.

dunsscot

Dear larc,

:Duns,
I find your arguementation for keeping the accusation of pedophelia within the confines of the jurisprudence of a body of elders to be particularly week.:

Maybe that is because I did not offer any argumentation. Go back and read my post and you will see that I admitted the view we JWs now hold MIGHT have to be readjusted. I was not dogmatic in my comments, but specifically tried to warn you of the danger that results when Caesar unnecessarily gets involved in religious issues. The JW procedure is after all based on a certain theological viewpoint. It is primarily a matter of biblical exegesis. The rights of individuals with respect to their religion also have to be respected. If the universal Christian congregation has an arrangement in place for disciplining sinners, how can it rightly be faulted for judging those on the "inside" while God judges those on the outside (1 Cor 5:9-13)?

:The majority of these men are poorly educated and ill equipped to provide justice. Now if a young boy or girl says that they were sodomized, don't you think they should be sent for a medical examination?.:

First I think the claim should be examined by congregation elders or parents and then adjudicated as to its veracity. I have a little girl that is presently staying with my wife and I for the summer. She told me that a little boy tried to rape her one day, and her momma did not report the young man to the police. I was initially infuriated and internally agitated. But my wife, instead of calling the police or DSS, called the child's mother. The mother pointed out that the young man did NOT try to rape the little woman. When we asked the little girl about the incident without telling her what her mom had reported to us, the girl admitted that the boy did not try to violate her.

Children do sometimes get mixed up or exaggerate events, larc. So why run to get an examination when the congregation IS equipped to handle the problem spiritually? If authorities need to be brought into the matter, there are ways the congregation elders can perform this action without overstepping what they feel is the scriptural view of matters. They can handle the situation in the same way they deal with a brother, who is not supporting his family. Disfellowship the unrepentant wrongdoer and allow the sister to pursue child support in the courts.

:If a child goes from happy to depressed after a visit with someone and has unspecified problems, don't you think they should be referred to a clinician who has special training?:

Why make this leap?

(1) Depressed child after visit with Brother Larry ---> a probe to see if the child has been molested. This approach is absolutely nonsensical. A child could be depressed for many reasons. Brining in a clinician seems a bit hasty. You are not thinking about the effect that this act could have on both the child and the accused, if he or she is innocent.

:If the parents come to believe that someone has forced their child to have oral sex, should that child be examined for trace evidence?:

What would make the parents believe that someone forced the child to perform oral sex? It cannot be mere speculation or a depressed child, as you discuss above.

:I really don't think the elders are qualified to do any of this.
The same kinds of questions should be considered regarding rape and mental illnes.:

I'm not suprised that you do not think the elders are qualified to handle these matters. Maybe they are not clinicians or medical/social workers. But the elders are supposed to be spiritual shepherds, who try to apply scriptural guidance when difficulties arise in God's congregation. The ancient judges of Israel were not trained clinicians either, yet they handled many cases of a delicate nature that no doubt affected the very psyche of young men and women. (Who treated young Israelite women after they were raped by virile Israelite men? Who handled such judicial matters in times of antiquity?) JW elders and Dunsscot look at matters from a frame of reference that is qualitatively distinct from yours. It is no wonder you do not understand JW procedure when it comes to handling pedophilia cases. You are trying to adjudicate this matter in purely secular terms.

:Duns, you may want to refer to another thread started by Amazing that was addressed to you, if you haven't already.:

Thanks for pointing this thread out to me. I actually missed it among all the posts. I'll respond to Amazing tomorrow.

Duns the Scot

113

Silentlambs and Signifiers that Signify Nothing

by dunsscot in

call me a neopositivist, a semi-verificationist or semi-falsificationist, but the claims made by "silentlambs" reminds me of the shakespearean line that was quoted in the creator book published by the wtbts.

that is, the contentions of silentlambs seem like much "sound and fury" that in truth signify nothing.

i am of course referring to the supposed dateline show and the claims made about some members of the gb of jehovah's witnesses.

dunsscot

Dear dedalus,

:Dunnscot,
Well, if we all lead the kind of lives you advocate, there'd be no reason to write poetry, drama, literature.:

I fail to see how my thoughts expressed in the previous post negate the need for poetry, drama or literature. I love all three mediums of literary communication. Poetry and literature has so much to offer us in the way of transcendent values, as they are universally expressed by men and women, who efficaciously wield the pen. But good poetry does not have to cater to the base instincts of man.

:The problem with the positivist writers is that they fail to convey anything to do with the actual drama of being alive. Moliere's satires of middle class life, with all its attendant folly, can make me laugh, but he never convinces me that he knows what it is like to be in love, or has ever been in love himself.:

There is a difference, IMHO, between being in love and being promiscuous. I do not have to live the life of a profligate to convince someone else what profligacy is like. In fact, I once lived in dissolution, but tired of it. Debauchery is the very negation of life!

:And your mind, which can do no more than regurgitate philosophical tidbits, atrophies without any real experience to think upon. The result: you come off as a bore and a snob.:

I engage in a number of wholesome activities. Surely you are not telling me that I have to party with the boys to know what life is all about. I've done it, and came to the conclusion that being a party animal is vanity. Why would I want to return to the vomit and filth of debauched living?

As for your comment about "philosophical tidbits," I assure you that I can do more than regurgitate theoretical tidbits. Why, I can also bring forth philosophical profundities and in-depth analyses of particular philosophical works. I have elected not to do so on this board though. :-)

Seriously, you really do not know me. All you have observed is a persona concocted by a certain philosopher JW, who wants to take a different approach to apologetics. My interests range widely, and I am well read in a number of academic areas. I love taking in a nice play or even going to a theme park every now and then. I'm just convinced that the good life does not reside at the bottom of a scotch bottle.

Dan

Duns the Scot

113

Silentlambs and Signifiers that Signify Nothing

by dunsscot in

call me a neopositivist, a semi-verificationist or semi-falsificationist, but the claims made by "silentlambs" reminds me of the shakespearean line that was quoted in the creator book published by the wtbts.

that is, the contentions of silentlambs seem like much "sound and fury" that in truth signify nothing.

i am of course referring to the supposed dateline show and the claims made about some members of the gb of jehovah's witnesses.

dunsscot

Dear Todd,

:To accuse one of it (or any crime, for that matter) without evidence is also abhorrent. History is rife with examples of innocent people who didn't fit societal norms and who suffered cruel injustices--up to and including death--as a result. I think some may have missed the general thrust of dunscott's argument or else I did. I may have missed it (I haven't read every word of every post here) but I don't think he's apologizing for pedos or even the Society's means of (not) dealing with them. He's just asking for something a bit more concrete than a simple accusation and it's resulting lynch mob mentality. I think it's a worthy request.:

Thanks for getting at the heart of my concern, Todd. Sorry that this thread has taken a different turn.

Besto,
Dan

Duns the Scot

113

Silentlambs and Signifiers that Signify Nothing

by dunsscot in

call me a neopositivist, a semi-verificationist or semi-falsificationist, but the claims made by "silentlambs" reminds me of the shakespearean line that was quoted in the creator book published by the wtbts.

that is, the contentions of silentlambs seem like much "sound and fury" that in truth signify nothing.

i am of course referring to the supposed dateline show and the claims made about some members of the gb of jehovah's witnesses.

dunsscot

Dear dedalus,

You seem to have a knack for crafting witty and well-wrought prose. Implement this gift more often. It will not offend ME. :-)

You ask:

:So what's left? Maybe you think I'm being flippant, but I'm serious. Is it that you're "above all that?" What's the point of thinking great thoughts, if it renders you impotent, passionless, sterile? The greatest thinkers, the ones most worth reading, were not above bitter negativity, vulgar speech, fornication, etc. I'm beginning to wonder if you're much more than an academic parrot.:

In my personal life, I am far from being "impotent, passionless," or "sterile." The Subtle Doctor enjoys life in the wholesome manner evidently prescribed by the Creator of all things (ta panta). Passion (pathos) is fine when it is directed toward that which is transcendent and life-promoting. Having a cold beer or spending time with one's mate engaging in intimate activities can many times serve as the pinnacle of one's day. But if pleasure becomes an end instead of a means to an end, Duns thinks we're asking for trouble.

It has wisely been said that the body is a proper servant, but a poor master. Some wise sagacious observer also declared that if one makes money his or her deity, it will plague him or her like the devil. My point is that we must not mistake ends for means and, secondly, we need to select ends that will promote lasting happiness and meaning in our lives. (Aristotle thinks the supreme end is the contemplative life, and I do not believe he is far off the mark in this matter. Aquinas, however, filled in the Aristotelian gaps contained in Book X.6-7 of the Nicomachean Ethics.) Emil Brunner well noted that meaning that is not eternal is in reality no meaning.

As for the thinkers you mention, I concur. I am often disappointed to read about the scandalous lives of certain ancient philosophers. Nevertheless, there are many many thinkers from diverse schools of thought, who did not give in to lives governed by base desire. Moreover, if there is one thing I have learned from being a JW and philosopher, it is this:

Avoid doing that which brings harm to yourself and/or others. Having identified the destructive nature of certain behaviors that are inimical and insalubrious perversions in and of themselves, I choose to refrain from such self-destructive behaviors. My decision has nothing to with a feeling of superiority or impotence.

Thanks for listening,
Dunny

Duns the Scot

113

Silentlambs and Signifiers that Signify Nothing

by dunsscot in

call me a neopositivist, a semi-verificationist or semi-falsificationist, but the claims made by "silentlambs" reminds me of the shakespearean line that was quoted in the creator book published by the wtbts.

that is, the contentions of silentlambs seem like much "sound and fury" that in truth signify nothing.

i am of course referring to the supposed dateline show and the claims made about some members of the gb of jehovah's witnesses.

dunsscot

Dear bboy,

Lots of laffa, you nut. What a sense of humor. I am trying sittin' here laffin' like a foo!

Besto,
DanT

Duns the Scot

113

Silentlambs and Signifiers that Signify Nothing

by dunsscot in

call me a neopositivist, a semi-verificationist or semi-falsificationist, but the claims made by "silentlambs" reminds me of the shakespearean line that was quoted in the creator book published by the wtbts.

that is, the contentions of silentlambs seem like much "sound and fury" that in truth signify nothing.

i am of course referring to the supposed dateline show and the claims made about some members of the gb of jehovah's witnesses.

dunsscot

Dear Had
Enough

You write concerning my comment about this board:

: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.:

I have no doubts I would be welcomed 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.:

I meant that from what I've read on this board, I think this forum would not help me personally. I'm not interested in agnosticism, atheism, the teachings of Christendom, evolution, drinking kegs of beer, vulgar speech, bitter negativity, spreading rumors, Christian bashing or fornicating left and right with whomever. I do not see much common ground between myself and others on this board. I could go on, but I think you understand what I'm saying.

Sincerely,
Dan

Duns the Scot

113

Silentlambs and Signifiers that Signify Nothing

by dunsscot in

call me a neopositivist, a semi-verificationist or semi-falsificationist, but the claims made by "silentlambs" reminds me of the shakespearean line that was quoted in the creator book published by the wtbts.

that is, the contentions of silentlambs seem like much "sound and fury" that in truth signify nothing.

i am of course referring to the supposed dateline show and the claims made about some members of the gb of jehovah's witnesses.

dunsscot

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

113

Silentlambs and Signifiers that Signify Nothing

by dunsscot in

call me a neopositivist, a semi-verificationist or semi-falsificationist, but the claims made by "silentlambs" reminds me of the shakespearean line that was quoted in the creator book published by the wtbts.

that is, the contentions of silentlambs seem like much "sound and fury" that in truth signify nothing.

i am of course referring to the supposed dateline show and the claims made about some members of the gb of jehovah's witnesses.

dunsscot

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