Mr Larc,
Hope you slept well and that you enjoyed the wake-up menu. No I am not stalking you - just debating you as I preceive your intelligence and the manner where you are one of the few who can argue ideas rather than insult the other person. You are a technician?? Why do I perceive that? Because of the technical differences you perceive in things. To quote you:
1. JWs a cult: I don't think they are a cult. I think they are a high control sect.
Pray tell me what the diference is?
Using the dictionary:
cult (klt)n.
A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
It doesn't take too much massaging to stuff JW's into that box does it? One could probably point to some issues of semantic definition but I would be interested in seeing your substantiated technical claim, sir.
2. Brain Washing: I don't believe that JWs are brain washed. I think they are indoctrinated if they came in as adults, and I think they were enculcated and enculturated, if they were raised in it.
I would postulate, sir, that while we could find more palatable terms they touch and crossover with the term "brainwashing". In reference to such I post as evidence the following 2 articles:
http://www.dcd.net/NBP/persuasn.html and (my favorite on the subject)
http://www.factnet.org/ (look at this page on that site
http://www.factnet.org/coercion.html?FACTNet).
Disfellowshipping: Everyone says how terrible and awful it is. Well, what did you expect? You knew the rules. You would have done the exact same thing when you were a true believer. If you get so much as a hello, you should consider yourself lucky
Sir, you almost convinced me but then I thought about it for half a second longer. Perhaps if they removed "disfellowshipping" there powers of mind control would be diminised. Whenever coercive psychological systems are employed by "confusing, intimidating and silencing their victims, those who profit from these systems evade exposure and prosecution for actions recognized as harmful and which are illegal in most countries such as: fraud, false imprisonment, undue influence, involuntary servitude, intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct and other tortuous acts." (source: Dr. Margaret Singer professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley the acknowledged leading authority in the world on mind control and cults.)
The blood issue: All religions and governments require that you be willing to die for something. Their particular choice is peculiar, but the request for your life is not unique, by any means.
You state a fact, but it is one which is missing the real issue. That's like saying "we all die at some point" (a fact you agree) but if I add "...so why don't we all just kill ourselves now and drink the kool-aid?" Now I am using the first fact as a basis for influence to a certain action. This is a common technique in the psychology of influence. I won't get into the specific issues on the blood doctrine as this is not what this is about.
I would like to conclude with a general impression of your post, sir (one you can score or clairfy for me). You are using the technique of "minimizing by comparison" as well as attempting to reframe the issues. While these techniques can be effective in treating victims they can also be destructive when victims are told that they are over-reacting and/or things aren't really as bad as they thought they were. Isn't there some danger to just throwing this type of post out there? Or was your intent to foster debate?
Respectfully,
GD
