Posts by DogGone

372

On respect for the belief of others. Sorry for the long post

by StarTrekAngel in

i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.

i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.

it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.

DogGone

I don't get how that is a lie. If it is "ignorance at best" why not go with that?

Since you brought up definition, the one that occurs to me is to "press or urge". Pointing out a discourtesy is, in my kneck of the woods, pressing someone. Proceeding that with calling someone out for not following through and for backing down is textbook pressing. Is this is a regional thing? Where I am "since you insist" is a pretty common term for when you are pressed or shamed into something. As an example:

A: Let's go swimming

B: No, I'd rather not

A: You are being lazy

B: Ha! Well, since you insist... let's go

It is unthinkable in my area (Western Canada) that A would reply "You are lying, I never insisted on anything, I merely pointed out your laziness.". It would be even stranger if that devolved into an attack on B's honesty and integrity. It would be beyond all comprehension if A stated that B would be dismissed until a full appeal was made and reasons why B should every be trusted again were put forth.

A: Have another cookie

B: No, I shouldn't

A: I made them special for you

B: Since you insist, I'll have another.

A: Don't lie, I never insisted, I merely pointed out the fact I made them for you. Don't put this on me. How dare you. I demand an immediate apology. Get the hell out of the kitchen and go to your room until you write me an essay on why I should ever trust you again. You damn little filthy liar.

Anyway, I don't get it. Maybe I never will. I must say, I do wonder if you aren't just having a good deal of fun playing pedantic.

But, I can see we aren't coming to agreement on a common definition. I thought I might help, I didn't.

One thing I missed, where did Eden admit his claims weren't accurate? I'm sorry, I must have skipped that entirely which does me no credit.

372

On respect for the belief of others. Sorry for the long post

by StarTrekAngel in

i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.

i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.

it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.

DogGone

There has certainly been a piling on against Viviane, which is unfortunate. And she is 100% right that questioning her mental health and dismissing her with misogynistic statements is out of line. I also had no idea what a "home truth" was.

A year ago Eden and I had an exchange with a poster named Focus. Focus had impressive historical knowledge and made powerful points but wrote with a certain bombastic style and, in my opinion, stretched the rules of logic and rhetoric to support his position. Eden and I exchanged a PM where we agreed tone is important if your aim is to persuade. Others may disagree. Personally, I admire the tone Eden uses.

On the other hand, I respect Viviane's brain, her points are always razor sharp but, much like the great Richard Dawkins, not always with a tone I find helpful. That is entirely irrelevant to anyone but me, of course. People smarter than me use a tone I don't like. Maybe I just don't like that they are smarter.

Viviane, when your past posts were selectively sliced up and posted it was a direct attack on you. This thread became a chance to settle scores, I think, and if it were me I would be feeling hurt and defensive. You said, though, that the internet doesn't bother you and I respect that. You have a stronger ability to be dispassionate and/or a stronger sense of self than I.

What I don't understand, then, is why things escalated so much over the word "insist". I went back through the discussion and I thought it a rather fair reading that you "insisted".

"you're just not backing it up or following through.
.... Urbanity would include thing like, oh, say, if you make accusations, being able to prove it. It's just common courtesy"

That is "insisting" to me. Am I also a dishonest and fallacious poster whom you will dismiss until I explain in detail why you should ever trust a word I say?

The amazing thing is, Eden actually took the time to show you why he felt you insisted and you called it BS.

Repeatedly framing what is, at worst, a misreading as a terrible reputation destroying lie is disproportionate in the extreme. Notwithstanding the shoddy way you are being treated (and you are) I rather hoped you would retract that. I think it would do you credit (I am aware you don't care).

Everyone: I entered late and uninvited into the middle of someone else's argument. It seems this has become my MO. I deserve all the vitriol you toss my way.

42

Why are GMO's bad?

by cappytan in

jw
friends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh4bi60alzu.

first person to say, "this scishow episode is a monsanto conspiracy," is a rotten egg..

DogGone

14

Rutherford's Hitler Letter - An Alternate History

by cappytan in

if you're unaware of the letter tinged with anti-semitism and offering tacit approval that rutherford wrote to hitler, see this article on jwfacts.. so, we all know the witnesses were persecuted quite a bit during the war years.

i personally had family that was in jail with brother schroder in the 40's for the crime of "peddling.

i'm an agnostic fader, however i still think the mob violence against the witnesses was deplorable.

DogGone

I appreciate what you are saying, but doubt exposure of the letter in the US at the time would have caused any animus in the United States toward the JWs. We tend to look backwards in history with the benefit of hindsight and mistake the mood of what people became with what they were earlier.

What I mean is that this letter was from 1933. The mood in the US was not entirely anti-Nazi in 1933 nor immediately thereafter. There was a growing anti-Nazi Hollywood league, especially after 1936, but don't mistake that for how the political and business leaders of the day spoke about Hitler and the Nazi party. On the contrary, Rutherford would have been closely in line with many other commentators of the time. Now, as you move later into the 30's and the regime becomes ever more dark, the mood changed considerably.

Had this letter been written in 1942 and there after exposed in the US, yes there would have been all manner of extra hostility toward the JWs. But that is not the reality of the chronology.

73

Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime (NYTimes)

by NewYork44M in

DogGone

Flipper: "however you do not view it as a crime against children or humanity to have " ABNORMAL sexual desire for children " ?"

Answer: No.

Apognophos: " perhaps partly due to shorter life expectancies (though they weren't as short as most people think these days)."

THANK-YOU. One of my biggest pet peeves is how historical life expectancy at birth is casually used to state how long people lived. This act of ignorance is not restricted to the public or the media; I have frequently seen scientists and erudite commentators make the same error. I start yelling at the paper, the book, or the TV when this happens. Fortunately, they never yell back.

73

Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime (NYTimes)

by NewYork44M in

DogGone

Band,

I enjoyed reading your post and discovering you had investigated writing an op-ed for the NYT. For what it is worth, my view of the matter is close to yours. I see you were refering the the power of the sex drive in general and not this specific one in particular. It is true, we humans frequently do mad things for this drive, putting ourselves in all manner of risky situation.

Although some offenders take dramatic action to stop from re-offending, it is also worth pointing out some who have never offended also make great effort to never offend. If they were to tell some on this thread that they are a pedophile but are working hard to be safe and want others to know to increase safetly, some would want them dead. The thinking being they cannot be helped, are monsters, are evil, etc etc. Others, such as yourself, have a much more nuanced understanding of "want" and "do". We are betting served as a society to help these people. That is what I understand the article was saying.

Right now the proliferation of child pornography is exposing thousands who have the inclination and have never acted on it, beyond hoarding hideous images and videos. We could kill them all, we could lock them up forever, or we could treat them effectively.

As for treatment, the greatest proof it works is the significantly lower recidivism for those who complete treatment as for those who don't. The links are a few years old, but good old cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] has success in controlling impulses - not eliminating them.

National Review of Medicine - http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2006/09_15/3_patients_practice02_15.html

Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton - http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/93.html

73

Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime (NYTimes)

by NewYork44M in

DogGone

Band,

It might interest you to know that the recidivism rate is not "so great". For a previous discussion of the many studies regarding this:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/child-abuse/257680/6/Protecting-pedophiles-while-protecting-children

Otherwise, I appreciated your post. I was wondering how you came to the conclusion that there is no control of the drive? I've found you usually hold well supported opinions so I'm interested to learn.

73

Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime (NYTimes)

by NewYork44M in

DogGone

Thank-you, to the usual suspects for your rational discourse.

I can't abide arguing with who can't grasp the difference between "want" and "did" or between "desire" and "action". It saddens me, since these posters are otherwise thoughful. This is just too painful and scary a subject for some, I fear.

114

Early Evidence for 1 John 5: 7

by Perry in

italic 4th and 5th century.

629 in the 14th century.

429 in the 14th century (margin).

DogGone

Yes, the the old text was accepted for hundreds of years - we have done some reading since then, thankfully.

But, it is not just Westcott and Hort, it is also the text produced by N/A and UBS. But, this won't matter to you, I'm sure, if you've decided scholarship peaked 500 years ago and has been declining ever since. Not much that I can say.

Curious, isn't it, that no ante-nicene father, that no writings during the Arian controversy, reference this text at all? Might be an important scripture for Athanasius to point out, no? Also curious, that no early versions render it this way and not a single early manuscript. Strange how it only pops up in the late fourth century. Even more strange that such as Wallance, Robertson, modern trinitarian translations such as NIV, NAB, ESV, TEV, and dozens more reject theos as genuine.... doesn't matter?

Thank-you for your research, it shows pretty clearly that you choose the KJV because it fits your bias, not because you have concluded it is the most faithful witness.

Conclusion > Evidence - backwards, friend, backwards - Evidence > Conclusion

114

Early Evidence for 1 John 5: 7

by Perry in

italic 4th and 5th century.

629 in the 14th century.

429 in the 14th century (margin).

DogGone

Perry, you

What do you say to the critique about your wild claim that Cyprian must have had access to the autographs of "John's" epistles? I'd say that is a pretty outrageous statement.

It is, I agree, evidence FOR the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum. This must be compared to the all the evidence AGAINST including it. It certainly doesn't argue that "it must be a valid reading". Goodness, if all textual criticism could be resolved so neatly we could fold up whole schools of scholarly inquiry!

On 1 Tim 3:16 - it does not say "God was manifest in the flesh". Look at an interlinear. That is a theologically biased translation where the subject is assumed for the reader - as bad as the NWT's throwing in [other] at will.