cofty

Joined

• started 464 topics
• posted 24,957 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by cofty

• 
  12

  Welcome me

  by natasha in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hello brothers and sisters am new here , what is the website all about ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Hi natasha, welcome to the forum.
• 
  78

  Pacifism is Morally Indefensible

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have been surprised recently to see so much support by ex-jws for the watchtower's refusal to fight and kill.

  in my opinion it is a vice masquerading as a virtue.

  of course war should always be a last resort but there are occasions that it has to be done.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Listener - If the same outcome can be achieved by the use of non-lethal force then that is preferable in most instances. That is not what the thread is about.

  I am talking about the hypocrisy of the Watchtower who forbid the taking of a human life under any circumstances even when that is necessary to save the lives of others.

  That may involve defending your own wife and children from criminals, fighting terrorist, being part of a war against aggressors or defending a population from genocide - as the international community failed to do in Bosnia.

  That dogmatic position is moral cowardice. It is not a virtue to insist that taking a life is wrong, if doing so saves other innocent lives. Our national and international laws reflect that principle. JWs are moral cowards and yet many ex-JWs seem to go on supporting this dogma.

  Shadow - What has that got to do with the discussion?

  I was raised in the cult and had no opportunity to join the military. My son is in the military. I would not hesitate to use lethal force to defend myself or others if necessary - would you?
• 
  46

  Will Artificial Intellegence Make The Human Race Extinct?

  by Brokeback Watchtower in

  1. social
  2. current

  i think it is inevitable.

  i don't worry about it but it just seems that the human race is going down a road that they can't make a turn off.. they are probing/discovering how the human mind works and produces intelligence down to the individual molecule.

  now with the invention of the super quantum computer soon we will be able to build even better artificial intelligence greater than our own, so it will be easily able to out smart us because will we be a bunch of dumb apes first discovering how to make fire in it's eyes.. it will have it's own different agendas than us humans.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Fiction.
• 
  78

  Pacifism is Morally Indefensible

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have been surprised recently to see so much support by ex-jws for the watchtower's refusal to fight and kill.

  in my opinion it is a vice masquerading as a virtue.

  of course war should always be a last resort but there are occasions that it has to be done.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  The Third Reich may appear monstrous to you but it did not for the thousands of German soldiers who fought during the war. - Earnest

  And history has proven beyond all sensible doubt that they were entirely wrong and those of us who judge the Third Reich to be odious beyond redemption entirely correct.

  most people who use deadly force whether at war, or otherwise, believe they are justified in doing so. Including your group of terrorists on the rampage with guns.

  They too are entirely wrong. Murder and oppression in the cause of utopian ideologies - Fascist, Islamic, Communist - is evil and must be opposed, by deadly force if necessary. My contempt for moral relativism is total. There are moral facts - to deny them is as obtuse as the ravings of creationism or advocates of a flat earth.

  would I be correct to assume that you believe those who refused to fight for Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa because they believed it was wrong to take a human life are moral cowards?

  Any German who refused to murder others in the name of an evil ideology is a hero - but that does not make them a pacifist. If they would also refuse to use lethal force to defend their wife of children then yes they are moral cowards. Motive is everything.
• 
  78

  Pacifism is Morally Indefensible

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have been surprised recently to see so much support by ex-jws for the watchtower's refusal to fight and kill.

  in my opinion it is a vice masquerading as a virtue.

  of course war should always be a last resort but there are occasions that it has to be done.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Earnest are you trying to make a moral equivalence between the monstrosity of the Third Reich and the Allied forces that defeated them? Surely not!

  This thread is NOT specifically about WWII as I made clear in the OP. However WWII provides an example of a time when it took moral and physical courage to defeat fascism.

  My point is that taking and ideological position that it is wrong to take another human life is morally indefensible.

  Take the situation of a group of terrorists on the rampage with guns. The only way to save innocent lives is to kill them. JWs are hypocrites in this regard.

  Rejecting deadly force on principle is moral cowardice.- O.P.
• 
  78

  Pacifism is Morally Indefensible

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have been surprised recently to see so much support by ex-jws for the watchtower's refusal to fight and kill.

  in my opinion it is a vice masquerading as a virtue.

  of course war should always be a last resort but there are occasions that it has to be done.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  (Pacifists) ... are a little like those who rely on group immunization - Simon

  Very good illustration.

  Thank you for the book recommendations TD. I have been reading a lot about the history of China, North Korea, Russia and the Middle East in the last couple of years. Germany is next on my list.
• 
  78

  Pacifism is Morally Indefensible

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have been surprised recently to see so much support by ex-jws for the watchtower's refusal to fight and kill.

  in my opinion it is a vice masquerading as a virtue.

  of course war should always be a last resort but there are occasions that it has to be done.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  as much evil the Japanese or Nazis were, the US wasn't doing much better at any point in time - Anony Mous

  This is an appallingly inaccurate statement. It makes me wonder if you have ever read any history at all. Or perhaps you limit your reading to the self-loathing Noam Chomsky?

  In my opinion, local conflicts are best resolved locally,

  There is on such option when Fascists are rampaging through the world raping, murdering and imposing oppressive regimes.

  having a 'world power' involved has always turned out bad historically because they do not share the same values, background and history of the locals.

  Every community on earth shares the value of not wanting to be the victims of genocide. Anybody who would stand by and watch a mass shooting or a rape if they had the tools and skills to stop it is a moral reprobate. Whether it is on a small scale crime or a national war the principle is the same. Refusing to take lives in order to save the lives of others is reprehensible.

  If I choose not to fight I will likely not suffer the loss of my life or those of my children. World war 2 was on another continent as you'll recall - Wasanelder

  No it wasn't on a different continent unless you think this thread is about the USA. It isn't.

  First off one would have to define "morally" as we know their there is no absolutes or any universal moral code to agree on. It may be against your morals but not against mine - Brokeback

  How about Do unto others ...?

  Being prepared to use whatever force is necessary - including deadly force - at personal risk in order to stop a far greater evil is a moral good.

  Lastmanstanding - You sound as if you think I am glorifying war.

  Just to be clear this is not about the rights or wrongs of WWII or any other war. It is about the moral cowardice of the Watchtower organisation who hide behind neutrality refusing to be part of armed conflict while expecting others to do the fighting on their behalf. Whether that involves a war or a policeman dealing with armed terrorists it is reprehensible.
• 
  78

  Pacifism is Morally Indefensible

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have been surprised recently to see so much support by ex-jws for the watchtower's refusal to fight and kill.

  in my opinion it is a vice masquerading as a virtue.

  of course war should always be a last resort but there are occasions that it has to be done.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Using force doesn't necessitate using deadly force

  Yes it does when millions of Fascist soldiers are on the move murdering and pillaging western democracies as they were in 1939.

  in a war, many civilian casualties occur

  Yes and everything should be done to reduce civilian deaths but failing to kill the aggressors will result in many, many more deaths.

  There are other ways to stop criminals that involve non lethal methods. Tasers, nets, mace, I mean the list is endless

  The safest way to stop terrorists with automatic weapons or suicide vests is to shoot them dead asap.
• 
  78

  Pacifism is Morally Indefensible

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have been surprised recently to see so much support by ex-jws for the watchtower's refusal to fight and kill.

  in my opinion it is a vice masquerading as a virtue.

  of course war should always be a last resort but there are occasions that it has to be done.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  I have been surprised recently to see so much support by ex-JWs for the Watchtower's refusal to fight and kill. In my opinion it is a vice masquerading as a virtue

  Of course war should always be a last resort but there are occasions that it has to be done. The Third Reich had to be stopped by deadly force. Similarly Japan had to be stopped. The cruelty of Japan's conduct in China defies description.

  The only possible way to save the human race from decades or even centuries of tyranny was through war. Those who refused to fight were not necessarily cowards - it must have taken courage to be a conscientious objector - but they were morally wrong. An organisation like the Watchtower that instructed it's tens of thousands of members to refuse to fight are reprehensible. There was a right and wrong in WWII. The only ethical position was to support the Allies. Neutrality in the face of Fascism and genocide was shameful.

  Technically the Watchtower are not pacifists; they just refuse to take life. That is ridiculous. If somebody attacks me or my loved ones I will not hesitate to use deadly force if that is what is required to protect the innocent. When the public are being attacked by armed terrorists JWs just like everybody else want the police to show up and kill the gunmen. That is hypocritical if you would refuse to pull the trigger as a matter of principle.

  It's so easy to think of wars that should never have happened. That is not a defense. My argument is not with those who think for example, that we should not have gone into Iraq or who object to the existence of specific types of weapons. That isn't the point. Rejecting deadly force on principle is moral cowardice.
• 
  29

  if pre 1975 you said "The system will still be here late 2017" what would be the J.W's reaction?

  by karter in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  one word for it.....apostate!

  !.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  It's a good question. I remember a comment around then that "we can say for sure that we are in the last decade of this old system."