Posts by Magnum

320

Richard Dawkins defends mild pedophilia, says it does not cause lasting harm

by chrisuk in

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

Magnum

chrisuk: As somone ponied out, if the WTS used the term mild pedophilia there would be outrage on this site.

Yeah, probably so - by you and the ones on this site who jump to conclusions without a fair, reasonable, and level-headed analysis... the ones who go on witch hunts and hang without a fair trial.

Maybe Dawkins should have said "milder pedophilia", to indicate that he thought that some forms were less serious than others, but that none are really mild. But he was being interviewed and probably none us exress things exactly the way we want when speaking off the cuff.

And without putting much thought into it, I don't see why it would be outrageous to think that some forms of pedophilia are more serious than others.

1) A man very lightlly and momentarily touches a young girl's breast deliberately and in the wrong way and feels remorse over it.

2) A man brutally sodomizes a young girl with no concern for the effect on her.

Is it wrong to think that #2 is more serious than #1, but that both are wrong?

EDIT: Witness My Fury, I hadn't seen your post when I wrote the above. I agree with you.

320

Richard Dawkins defends mild pedophilia, says it does not cause lasting harm

by chrisuk in

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

Magnum

DJS & DesirousOfChange -

I agree wholeheartedly with both of you. Very well said.

DesirousOfChange: Personally, I don't see where Dawkins is defending or approving of "mild pedophilia", only that he is saying that he does not feel that he suffered any "lasting harm" from being groped or fondled as a boy by this teacher.

I feel the same way.

320

Richard Dawkins defends mild pedophilia, says it does not cause lasting harm

by chrisuk in

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

Magnum

OK - I just read the article. Though my feelings may change or be changed, my initial feeling is that the reactions against Dawkins on this site and by some others are overblown. I agree with somebody who posted above out the "black and white thinking".

For one thing, the writer of the article wrote:

In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm."

Remember, it's the article writer who said Dawkins attempted to defend "mild pedophilia". I didn't understand him to be defending it. I just understood him to say that he doesn't judge people of one era by the standards of a different era and that he thinks that what happened to him and his classmates didn't cause them any lasting harm.

I think the writer's wrong to generalize and say that he 'does not believe it causes any lasting harm.' What he actually said, as shown by his actual words as quoted in the article was not general; it was specific to the case of him and his classmates. He said that he feels that what happened to him and his classmates didn't cause them any lasting harm. What's wrong with his admitting that? I was glad to hear of somebody who experienced something like that admit that he didn't have any lasting harm from it. I remember reading of a circuit overseer in either the Watchtower or Awake who said he killed some people in a war (Korean?), but that he didn't really dwell on it and wasn't traumatized by it. I was glad to hear somebody admit something like that because sometimes I feel that some play up the drama.

I definitely believe that some can be really be traumatized by things such as being molested or war experiences; I"ve known some who genuinely seemed to be, but nevertheless, I'm glad that some who are not will admit it.

30

Are they really that stupid

by moley in

jw
friends

i was recently approached by a couple of borg drones while i was walking my dog, and i thought why not, may plant a seed or two (how wrong was i).

there was no real logic to what they were saying but as i was in the local park the conversation started to veer to how wonderful nature was and how this was the work of a wonderful creator.

i did not let on i was a former witness and let them continue with their fairy tale of creation and how the vast multitude of animals shows a loving god at work blah blah blah...... but i digress, the converastion then turned to how evolution was false.. apparently to earth is only a few thousand years old, so i mentioned about the burgess shale, to be met with blank stares.

Magnum

in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus doesn't say the earth was around before the first day of Genesis. It includes it in the 6 days of creation.

Your point about what Exodus says is worth consideration, however, we're not arguing the issue here; we're merely relating what JWs teach, and they say that the creation of the heavens and earth is separate from the six creative days.

I've about given up on trying to determine what truth is from the Bible. It's not well-written, it's inconsistent, it's ambiguous, etc.

30

Are they really that stupid

by moley in

jw
friends

i was recently approached by a couple of borg drones while i was walking my dog, and i thought why not, may plant a seed or two (how wrong was i).

there was no real logic to what they were saying but as i was in the local park the conversation started to veer to how wonderful nature was and how this was the work of a wonderful creator.

i did not let on i was a former witness and let them continue with their fairy tale of creation and how the vast multitude of animals shows a loving god at work blah blah blah...... but i digress, the converastion then turned to how evolution was false.. apparently to earth is only a few thousand years old, so i mentioned about the burgess shale, to be met with blank stares.

Magnum

AnneB: Not stupid, but ignorant. There is hope.

I really think the majority are both stupid and ignorant, and I see little hope. They are blind to reason.

30

Do You Ever Think That You "Loved" Jehovah God?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i really wonder about that.

.

just like they say in prayers, that they "love" the governing body---do they really??

Magnum

I sort of thought I did, but I often wondered about that even during my JW prime. To me, it's difficult to know for sure. It was kind of hard to love somebody I had never seen or heard. Didn't know what to picture in my mind, though I always pictured something like that picture of him in the Revelation Climax book - the one of him sitting on the throne surrounded by the 24 elders.

I often prayed at night all alone outside under a starry sky and I felt appreciation and a sort of closeness, but having never received any answers (that I'm aware of) or ever getting any indication that my prayers were even heard, I found it dfficult to continue to feel close and appreciative.

30

Are they really that stupid

by moley in

jw
friends

i was recently approached by a couple of borg drones while i was walking my dog, and i thought why not, may plant a seed or two (how wrong was i).

there was no real logic to what they were saying but as i was in the local park the conversation started to veer to how wonderful nature was and how this was the work of a wonderful creator.

i did not let on i was a former witness and let them continue with their fairy tale of creation and how the vast multitude of animals shows a loving god at work blah blah blah...... but i digress, the converastion then turned to how evolution was false.. apparently to earth is only a few thousand years old, so i mentioned about the burgess shale, to be met with blank stares.

Magnum

started to veer to how wonderful nature was and how this was the work of a wonderful creator

I bet she doesn't understand nature the way I do. While I agree that there is wonder in it, it is also cold, horrible, brutal, and cruel. It's all about survival. I once asked my mother why she believes in a loving creator. She used the example of an orchid. She said something like "when I see a beautiful orchid, I know there is a creator." I said "do you know why that orchid is "beautiful"? It's because it's screaming at the top of its "lungs" for survival. It's competing with many other plants for the attention of insects to pollinate its kind. If orchids don't get pollinated, the genes don't get passed on; the species dies. Flowers have loud colors to attract insects. We might perceive such as being beautiful, but the one who understands basic biology knows the exhibition of loud colors, etc. is a desperate scream for survival; there's nothing "beautiful" about it."

Also, nature is sheer horror. Consider what goes on on the plains of Africa on one single day - sheer brutal horror. The moment a baby wildebeest is born, he has to get right on his feet and remain ever cautious and fearful. There's no gracefully growing old in nature; when an animal gets old and weak, that's it, he dies a gruesome, often violent death - no golden years.

To me, anybody who doesn't see the horror in nature is either naive and ignorant or dishonest - selectively choosing only evidence that supports his argument and ignoring the rest.

30

Are they really that stupid

by moley in

jw
friends

i was recently approached by a couple of borg drones while i was walking my dog, and i thought why not, may plant a seed or two (how wrong was i).

there was no real logic to what they were saying but as i was in the local park the conversation started to veer to how wonderful nature was and how this was the work of a wonderful creator.

i did not let on i was a former witness and let them continue with their fairy tale of creation and how the vast multitude of animals shows a loving god at work blah blah blah...... but i digress, the converastion then turned to how evolution was false.. apparently to earth is only a few thousand years old, so i mentioned about the burgess shale, to be met with blank stares.

Magnum

older sisters says OH, NONE OF THAT STUFF IS REAL. ITS BEEN PLACED THERE BY SATAN AND HIS DEMONS TO DECEIVE MANKIND INTO NOT BELEIVING IN CREATION.

Well, if that's the way it works, then we can't trust any of the physical evidence because it's been tampered with. We don't know what's genuine and what's not; we don't know who placed what here and for what reason.

She has already determined what truth is and any evidence against her truth is determined by her to be planted. It's like going to court having already determined that the accused is guilty and accepting only evidence indicating his guilt while saying that any that might indicate his innocence was planted. Why even go to court if that's the way it works? Just hang him.

If she wants to play that game, then it shouldn't be allowed for her to use the part of the physical evidence she wants to, but whatever you use is said to be fake. How do we know hers isn't fake? How do we know that some superhuman creature didn't plant the evidence she refers to to deceive us and make us believe in a fairy-tale creator?

30

Are they really that stupid

by moley in

jw
friends

i was recently approached by a couple of borg drones while i was walking my dog, and i thought why not, may plant a seed or two (how wrong was i).

there was no real logic to what they were saying but as i was in the local park the conversation started to veer to how wonderful nature was and how this was the work of a wonderful creator.

i did not let on i was a former witness and let them continue with their fairy tale of creation and how the vast multitude of animals shows a loving god at work blah blah blah...... but i digress, the converastion then turned to how evolution was false.. apparently to earth is only a few thousand years old, so i mentioned about the burgess shale, to be met with blank stares.

Magnum

Not sure if there's been any "new light" on the matter, but as far back as ten years ago they taught the Earth was "thousands" of years old. In the years leading up to 1975, they taught that each creation day was 7,000 years old, so the Earth was less than 50,000 years old.

I think you're mistaken. They said that the creative days were 7000 years long, but that the creation of the heavens and earth came before the creative days. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The creative days were after that. I think they say that the creative days were to prepare earth for man or something like that.

41

Would like all of your imput on this. Please

by Still Totally ADD in

jw
friends

both reopened mind and i are now in our early 60's and it seems our conversations lately have been on putting everything up for sale and buying a rv and travel until we can't anymore.

it has been a dream of ours for along time to see all the site's in the u.s. and canada.

we feel we could make money as we go by selling and teaching using herbs and gardening.

Magnum

If you can financially handle it, then by all means go for it. To me there is nothing more stimulating, interesting, fun, etc. than traveling and seeing and experiencing things. It is the dream of me and my wife to do it. We are mid 50ish. There are many places in my own state and within a few miles of my own house that I haven't seen and would love to see and experience. I don't understand how people can retire and just sit stale in one area. I want to see it all.

If you get an RV, get a simple, well-built one. If you get too old to travel, you can find a park somewhere to put it permanently - maybe, for example, a pretty park in Florida for those 55 and above. When I get older, I don't want a lot of house and yard to have to worry about; I'm trying to ged rid of mine now.

Travel, travel, travel. There is so much to see. Forty years ago, my grandparents, my mother, my sister, and I went on a three-week road trip to the western U.S. We went to all the national parks, old silver mining towns, etc. I will never forget it; to this day it inspires me thinking about it and seeing photos. And it was not only the attractions such as those just mentioned that were memorable, but also just the scenery and experiences we had the whole time. Just riding and looking out the window was fun. I want my wife to see the west.

We both want to do a lengthy tour of Florida; we want to start at the top of one coast and travel the entire coastline - all the way down and back up the other side. Then, after that, we want to tour the interior. There is much to see and do there, too. The U.S. has a very diverse landscape and geography and much interesting history and culture. There is so much to see - New England, the Outer Banks of NC, the midwest farming region, etc. There are also many off-the-beaten-path small towns with interesting histories.

I agree with you; you only live once. Don't spend the time you have left in a stale and uninspiring environment. Get out and see everything you can. Go til you can't go anymore. Then retire in a park and spend your days reading, walking to the beach (if you can), etc.

Sometimes when I stop at travel centers off interstate highways, I watch the travelers and wish I was on the road. I especially watch the older folks with RVs and I envy them. They always seem to be happier and more into life than the older folks I know who just get up in the morn and spend their days in the same old place living out their days. My wife and I often observe with envy the RVers who park overnight in WalMart parking lots. They seem to be having so much fun; it seems they're on adventure.

So, again, if you can make it financially, go for it.