http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.
Crofty,
I've read a few works about game theory and the evolutionary underpinnings of altruistic behaviour, but I've never come across a scientific explanation of objective ethics; philosophical frameworks, sure. I'd really appreciate it if you could point me at some books you might recommend. I'm pretty weak on psychology and ethics, so I'd appreciate the pointers.
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.
BucketShopBill,
Thank-you for distilling the debate. Great read. We are often guilty of attacking the low hanging fruit. Cobbleston is no "low hanging fruit".
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.
Simon,
Love the question. I think your question was answered strongly by Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling. His answer is the exact opposite of Earnest and is intellectually much more satisfying.
The ethical expression for what Abraham did is that he was willing to murder Isaac; the religious expression is that he was willing to sacrifice Isaac.
The ethical is the universal....
Faith... is this paradox, that interiority is higher than exteriority.
Then faith's paradox is this, that the single individual is higher than the universal, that the single individual determines his relationship to the universal through his relationship to the absolute, not his relation to the absolute through his relation to the universal. The paradox can also be put by saying that there is an absolute duty to God; ...if this duty is absolute the ethical is reduced to the relative....e.g. love of God can cause the knight of faith to give his love of his neighbour the opposite expression to that which is his duty ethically speaking.
....In the story of Abraham we find just such a paradox. Ethically speaking his relationship to Issac is this, that the father is to love the son. This ethical relationship is reduced to the relative as against the absolute relation to God... The absolute duty can then lead to what ethics would forbid... this is shown by Abraham... the ethical expression for what he does is this: he hates Isaac.
This is the "fear and trembling" which Kierkegaard felt his contemporaries lacked. Most current believers who would only believe in a God who conforms to ethics fall under this category. They may have something they call "faith", but it is not the faith of Abraham.
I'm an athiest, though not a particularily strong one. However, I do have immense respect for the likes of Kierkegaard who understand and embrace the logical conclusions of faith. In my experience, few religous people truly grasp this and prefer to see faith as rational and as an expression of Universal Ethics rather than at war with it.
If God says kill your son, you do it. If God says rape your son, you do it. And here is the monsterous elegance of faith. What a powerful and insane concept.
So let us either forget all about Abraham or learn how to be horrified at the monstrous paradox which is the significance of his life...
But, if one wants to market a cut-price version of Abraham and then still admonish people not to do what Abraham did, that that's just laughable.
most of us are reasonably familiar with reports of scandalous goings-on of that old jellyfish lecher, the founder of the watchtower cult, the one and only charles taze russell.. but, are these stories true?.
this thread is going to be devoted to his allegedly scurrilous activities.
so, bookmark it, please, bro' focus is in possession of noo light, and we're going to explore russell like you've never seen him explored before.. we're approaching his 100th death anniversary, and for all i know this virtual exhumation may lead to a real one.
I didn't question your view or your overall point about Russell. I questioned one of your "proofs". This is a discussion forum, not a shut up and listen because Focus is the smartest guy in the room forum. A wise person would appreciate having arguments sharpened through criticism. The overall conclusion can be correct, even if one or two points must be discarded.
Since you brought it up:
Your first point was that the story has credibility; Ross had means, money, and motive. Definitely, that belongs on the evidence pile. Your third point was that the WTS has had over 100 years to provide contrary evidence and has not. You also state that the WTS would have seized on even a word being untrue. I don't have any certainty about what the WTS would or would not do, so I'm discarding that statement. However, the general point that the WTS has not responded to the Eagle's coverage but has attacked the Ross pamphlet is persuasive, at least to me.
Your second point is that with "reductio ad absurdum" you can arrive at another "proof". I criticized this and you pointed out that there are different proofs. It would be unfair for me to demand "proof" to the standards of mathematics. I agree. However, your so called "proof", in this instance, would not stand up, not even in a civil trial. The problem with your "reductio ad absurdum" is that you didn't bring the "absurdum". The whole point of this logical tool is to prove a point by showing that the opposite is completely absurd, illogical, and incredible. Therefore, with "reductio ad absurdum" you have to, out of logical necessity, accept the opposite is true or accept a truly absurd possibility. This is not mathematics.
It is not at all absurd to imagine that a publication would risk libel, court challenges, and loss of reputation in order to publish a sensationalist story against someone with whom they have had a public battle. This, after all, is shortly after the nadir in New York journalism known as "Yellow Journalism". Falsehoods, libel, and exaggerations were, for a long time, the order of the day.
I feel I need to say this again. This does not make your overall narrative invalid. You have pointed out recently that you have read a great deal from this paper around the same time period and find it credible. I take your word for it. It all adds credibility to your narrative. However, I recommend you discard the lack of a libel suit as any sort of "proof".
This line of arriving at "proof" is popular, see if any of these sound familiar:
- Obama must have been born outside of America. Trump and other birthers were clearly not setting themselves up to be hammered in the courts and lose their reputation and a lot of money, to someone they did not love too well, it follows that what they say is absolutely accurate. If Obama had proof that would stand up in court he would sue for libel.
- Bush must have known about 911 in advance. Authors of the many "truther" books were clearly not setting themselves up to be hammered in the courts and lose their reputation and a lot of money, to someone they did not love too well, it follows that what they say is absolutely accurate.
It doesn't follow. It isn't even a remotely credible argument. I’ll use the logical tool on you. It is absurd to believe that in every case, each and every time there was a published falsehood about Russell, a public libel suit has been pursued by Russell or his associates. Therefore, it is logical to agree that, at least on occasion, such libel suits were not filed when falsehoods appeared.
Stick to your other evidence. Don't present the lack of a libel suit or the risk of one as some sort of guarantor of absolute accuracy.
most of us are reasonably familiar with reports of scandalous goings-on of that old jellyfish lecher, the founder of the watchtower cult, the one and only charles taze russell.. but, are these stories true?.
this thread is going to be devoted to his allegedly scurrilous activities.
so, bookmark it, please, bro' focus is in possession of noo light, and we're going to explore russell like you've never seen him explored before.. we're approaching his 100th death anniversary, and for all i know this virtual exhumation may lead to a real one.
Focus,
Using reduction ad absurdum, as they were clearly not setting themselves up to be hammered in the courts and lose their reputation and a lot of money, to someone they did not love too well, it follows that the article is absolutely accurate.
Actually, it does not follow. You don't actually think that because a publisher could be threatened with court action, lose reputation, and lose money that therefore, as a matter of logical necessity, they must be telling the truth? You don't really, do you? I won't insult your intelligence by continuing this rather obvious point.
What you have is evidence and lines of reasoning. Present them as such. EdenOne is expressing that further hard evidence is warranted, at least in the opinion of Eden. You may, of course, respctfully disagree.
dear friends.
i never was a dub.
i am not a qualified lawyer or accountant.
I sure hope so, Frankiespeakin.
dear friends.
i never was a dub.
i am not a qualified lawyer or accountant.
I have no reason to suspect the WTS does not have competent financial, tax, and legal advisors. I'd suspect they would bring in outside experts to vet a reorganization of this nature. There are many firms who provide expertise on liability shields and the like.
dear friends.
i never was a dub.
i am not a qualified lawyer or accountant.
This thread has been an enlightening read.
Could the WTS of New York do the old trick of transferring assets and income to the Pennsylvania Society to skirt these NY State reporting laws?
Added: Does anyone know what corp the new pledges are for? "The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" for example or for a special organization that could be moved off state? (That corp is NY based but has some registration in Florida, evidently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses) I guess what I'm wondering is whether this all a paper game where the balance sheet of the organization having the KH loans and incomes is being cleaned up and a new entity will have the end revenues.
Final Edit: "Kingdom Support Services, Inc., New York. Incorporated in 2000 to deal with construction of Kingdom Halls and Assembly Halls, other engineering needs, and vehicles." I wonder if this corp is being rolled up due to the reporting requirements.... This is all speculation, of course. But, something is behind the move and it isn't to benefit "Joe publisher".
i am inactive for about 10 years now..
Baptised as a teenager in 1993. 100% all-in.
Disfellowshipped 2003 - "loose conduct".
One year of trying to get reinstated. The reinstatement meeting was an eye openner. Absolutely terrible. I was denied, of course, but I had expected that. It was the asinine questions, the sheer incompetence and lack of care... my life, even my eternal life, was hardly worth a 15min conversation to these guys. So concluded the most painful period of my life.
Fully woke up from the period of 2004 to 2006. Getting professional assistance for my issues helped (whereas all the study/service/prayer/meetings never had). Having an inactive friend disfellowshipped for attending a function with me marked the first time I felt comfortable calling it a cult.
Am extremely happily married and have a brand new daughter (3 weeks old). Many of my JW friends left during the interim period. We are still good friends and I love them all very much. Remarkably, one who left before me returned. This after years trying to convince me my faith was wrong... such a strange planet. Course, as an Elder's son he never was disfellowshipped for his open drug use, sex, divorces, apostasy, etc. Such is the way of man made power structures and those who know how to game the system. I was stupid enough to go to the elders and confess everytime I sinned.
When I look at my daughter and lovely wife, I can't be bitter for anything. It brought me to this, humbled me greatly, instructed me on mercy, and forged a strength in me I did not know I had.
i have no respect for the governing body of jehovah's witnesses(tm) as i consider them to be wicked men.. having said that, is there any proven dirt on them that could expose them for the critters they are?.
i heard that jaracz was a sex offender but where's the evidence?.
.
Apognophos and Old Goat,
Thank-you for your balance and intellectual honesty. Sometimes it seems those who once swallowed every good yarn from the WTS now swallow every slander.
