Note: I am learning to be able to lengthen my submissions but I still haven't studied how to better format them. This post is to anyone in general who may be interested in this topic. In this discussion, it is my objective to make, what I believe to be, "honest" acknowledgements as a basis for moving an argument forward in a productive manner. If a person is trying to convince someone of the sincerity of one’s cause, they must, in my opinion, show that they are honestly aware of all the contingencies to the extent possible. For instance, when I read prejudicial statements that I know are “technically” wrong but nevertheless popular, I no longer pay much attention to the details. For me, it becomes “political rhetoric” and not necessarily truthful. This is what the “theocratic warfare” ploy is all about. It covers over unacceptable conduct with a “god like” mantel. Its true success is based upon a “singing to the choir” tactic. Those who agree with you will continue to agree and those who don’t will turn you off. In my opinion, that is exactly what the Watchtower Society has always done. When they “condemn” often it is without a firm basis and so the condemee won’t pay any attention. However, the message has really been sent to masses of condemors as an example of courageous and forthright behavior that they should emulate. So the condemnation need not be factually based because the audience isn’t really interested in facts. They only want to have their values reinforced whether “right or wrong.” I want to defend Eduardo’s goodness in order for him to, at least, listen to my criticisms. I do not want to automatically raise his JW “defensive shields.” Once the shields are up, you may as well stop “wasting your breath.” To defend a person’s “good appearances” is not to condone their alleged “bad behavior.” However, because the “point of the argument” is to get a person to “reconsider their behavior” and its relevance, honesty is necessary whether it fits all agendas or not. My challenge to Eduardo is whether he is “being honest” or just singing to the choir in his dealings with this group. My challenge to everyone else is to reconsider your motives in this discussion. Then write your motive or objective as the first line of your argument. In that way, the reader can tell up front whether they want to read the rest of the discussion. If the WT did that, wouldn’t that save a lot of time and trouble? This practice would also give the reader some ‘key words” to focus in on as a basis for grading the effectiveness of the material. As an example, in this discussion, my motive is to convince the audience that honesty, even if it hurts, is the best policy -- as a secondary objective, don’t my arguments sound cleaver and am I not smart. I don’t expect you to agree with all my objectives but if you, at least agree with one of them, then I will “ fill in the blanks for myself” on the rest. Thanks for listening (reading) if you have gotten this far. PS
