Why propagandize/appeal to emotion?

by cognisonance 21 Replies latest members private

• 

  cognisonance

  Please don't get me wrong, I don't believe the religion (or any religion) and absolutely loathe the thought reform techniques, propaganda techniques, and logic fallacies they employ. Perhaps this has made me very sensitive towards attempts to tell me how to think (or efforts to tell others how/what to think) that are not based on logic, but rather emotional appeals.

  I'd like to get some other perspectives on this matter. I find it troubling that former members often say things like the following:

  • JW's protect and harbor pedophiles
  • JW's are a pedophile's paradise
  • JW's enable pedophilia
  • JW's are child killers
  • JW's are encouraged to commit suicide
  • JW's are a dangerous cult

  These are just some examples. Now first, I will say that on some level, or with some spin, all these statements are correct! They also affect opinions that people come to. However, why spout this to other people (I've been guilty of saying JW's are a cult as well)? Here is what I have trouble with: why use loaded language and appeal to emotion instead of simply state the facts. Why not educate instead of propagandize? I realize that these are hooks, headlines, attention-grabbing statements that then could be explained (I have this issue with any sort of statements be it from groups like PETA, anti-smoking campaigns, etc, - the "cause" may be good or beneficial but the techniques employed are undesirable in my opinion). For example why not rephrase the above statements this way:

  • JW's, regarding accusations of pedophilia, require a confession or two witnesses. Without two witnesses (a rule that they derive from an interpretation of a bible verse), the congregation cannot take action against the accused.
  • JW's believe blood transfusions are sinful and would rather let their children die than receive a blood transfusion.
  • JW's believe blood transfusions are sinful and would rather die than receive a blood transfusion.
  • JW's shun former members, suppress critical thinking skills, control information, suppress questioning and doubt, foster us vs. them mentality, appeal to emotions of fear and guilt, etc...

  I realize that the first examples are more concise and as a result lose precision. But it is this very loss of precision I have trouble with, because it seems to shift the focus away from the facts and onto the emotional aspect of the issue. It also can be misconstrued (i.e. current JWs may easily object to the "suicide" accusation and say they view suicide as a sin, or that they don't encourage pedophilia - they hate it, or that they don't kill children because they view murder as wrong, etc... to them these are absurd statements). Why not leave emotions at bay and focus on the facts? Present both sides (educate, not propagandize) and let the reader make their own informed decision (which still may be that JWs are child killers, a dangerous cult, and enable pedophiles). But at least the reader comes to these conclusions on his/her own and knows exactly what it means when one says "JWs are child killers," A statement that without the facts, is very imprecise and ambiguous.
• 

  zeb

  Because of the 2 witness rule paedophiles have a free run. This has therefore made a safe haven for them. Thus your first three lines are 100% true

  recently in my city a notorious P. was jailed for a very long time. He had 'groomed' the local town where he lived into believing he was a wonderful man.

  Even official complaints against him were not acted on because of the persona he had built up around himself.

  Whether the cong can take action in like case is irrelevant. The Police are not told and stricken victims/parents are told to leave it in Jehovahs hands, being a line to stupify the victims, where the victims beliefs are used as a shild to protect perversion and avoid the bad publicity that comes when the men with the badge and the gun get involved. This is repeatedly coming out all around the world. To get easy access to children these bastards will do their field service, answer only from the 'party-line'at meetings where only the right clothes and even receive the 'privilige' (yay!) of handling the roving microphone around the KH meetings. By these things are witnesses assessed as to whether they are 'spiritual' and worthy. By these superficial things they are too grooming the cong to be seen as 'spiritual'.

  You sound like someone who has spent their days in a university cloister or was it Bethel? and sure as hell Cog you dont have kids! emotional?
• 

  ABibleStudent

  cognisonance - . . . However, why spout this to other people (I've been guilty of saying JW's are a cult as well)? . . .

  Hi cognisonance, Are JWs a cult or is the WTBTS a dangerous cult? In the WTBTS's cult speak, words can have more than one meaning. Also, is the WTBTS a religion, or is it a printing, distribution, and real estate holding corporation that uses BITE control techniques to victimize JWs? Words can be very powerful when used and when miss-used.

  Personally I do not like to refer to the WTBTS as JW nor do I like to refer to it as a religion. I also don't like it when the WTBTS's lawyers say that JWs hate pedophiles, because the problem is that the WTBTS's policies protect pedophiles and R&F JWs are too afraid to speak out against the WTBTS and its leaders, so saying that JWs hate pedophiles is ignoring the root cause of the problem.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  cognisonance

  Zeb,

  You bring up some good points (like a superficial person could get involved just to have more access to carry out his nefarious behavior).

  The Police are not told and stricken victims/parents are told to leave it in Jehovahs hands, being a line to stupify the victims, where the victims beliefs are used as a shild to protect perversion and avoid the bad publicity that comes when the men with the badge and the gun get involved.

  Maybe I just haven't read up on this much, but why the hell would this not get reported to the police? Trust in Jehovah? Sure one can do that and call the police at the same time. Why does it have to be a false dichotomy of one or the other. Use the legal system for broken laws and a religous system for moral/social rules.

  Protect reputation? That's horribly flawed logic if any falls prey to it. Let's see, an elder walks into the congregation armed with a gun and shooting people... Are you telling me the other elders would say, "oh we got to protect the reputation of the organization and not call the police?"

  If I had a child and the child tells me that they were molested, my first reaction would be to call the police (and I assume that would be of any parent). Are you saying that JW policy is to prevent, discourage, or even punish me from doing this? If so where is this written/documented? I'd like to know, thanks.

  Also, I thought many states require people in professional or responsible postions by law to report such accusations.
• 

  cognisonance

  ABibleStudent:

  Are JWs a cult or is the WTBTS a dangerous cult?

  That's an interesting point. I see the distinction you are trying to make. To me though JW == WTBTS. They are one and the same since I am speaking in terms of the organization as a whole. But I do see your point and don't think of individual members as being potentially dangerous but rather the control techniques.
• 

  zeb

  yes one can 'trust in Jehovah and call the Plice but that is not what happens. take a read through the site 'silent lambs'.website.

  where is it written? It isnt written but it is the practise. In writing? that would leave the wts way open to exposure, legal exposure and social/media.

  many states US and in other countries do require reports of abuse to be made and in such states reports may happen. There is an elders guide book that requires elders to report to the legal branch of the society any accounts of abuse. (would someone out there please supply the details of this book).

  In the state of Victoria (Australia) there was a recent case where the wts was taken to court for refusing to require of its members to obtain a "Working with Children Clearance" from the state Police there.

  They arrogantly refused.

  When offered all the help from the Victorian Government still refused. Bang! the court case hit. They said we dont run a school. They removed the sign from the front of the Kingdom Hall that gave meeting times including "Ministry School".

  Police attended the KH and took details from many of the people there and the wts went into panic. THEN they suggested that if those who thought they should have a WWCC then they (Note: "THEY") should apply for one from the Police.

  You say you have not looked into this. Take a look at a few other sites such as JW.facts

  go to Google and tap in "Candace Conti" this young woman should get the Nobel prize.
• 

  zeb

  Cog'Try jwnews.org
• 

  cognisonance

  This thread is getting sidetracked a bit. But that's okay. I read about the Conti Candice case, and I thought the issue had to do with the two witnesses rule only. So I looked into it again. So it is the 2 witness rule plus the fact the police aren't contacted first but JW Legal is instead, which is illegal in certain states (was Conti in a state that the law required the police to be contacted first?). I've seen a third accusation that it also involves Elders bullying or DFing people that go to the police? This latter point, seems odd to me becuase I don't think that is a sanctioned WTBTS thing and sounds more like individual Elders, going against/beyond what they have been told to do (i.e. WTBTS surely doesn't tell Elders to bully people to not tell the police by threatening to be DF'd if they do, do they?).

  As regards "Working with Children Clearance" one thing I couldn't find was WHY the WTBTS not want to comply with that legislation?

  As far as I can see it deals with requiring background checks for people that will be in contact with children. Why on earth was this faught? Was it from some "religous" reason? (i.e. it would prevent individuals from the being able to go in the ministry or something)? I'm not saying that is a good reason (a pedophile could do phone/letter writting if they can't go door to door). I'm just trying to understand why. It seems like a very reasonable and simple request and I'm perplexed why they would refuse.

  Trying to get back on topic...

  My issue is that it seems like some headlines are a tad over the top and sensational (let's move away from child abuse at the moment). For example, often I've heard that the "WTBTS Lies." Every definition I've come across of "lie" includes a component that says that an untruth is only a lie if there is intent to decieve or if the liar knows what they are saying isn't true (it's a bit complicated as to exact defintion of "lie" as shown here, but I think this works for our consideration).

  I am unfomfortable with saying the "WTBTS Lies." Why? Is it because I think everything they have written is factual? No. They say macro evolution never happened. That clearly is not factual. However, would I be correct to say that the "WTBTS lies" when they say that macro evolution never happened? I'd only be accurate with that statement if I could prove that they have purposely decieved or said things they knew weren't true their readers.

  They simply could believe what they are saying is true and without deceit. If so how can that be a lie? It is possible that the WTBTS simply did not know that they were presenting non-factual, out of context, information. They could have been incompentent. They could have had motivating reasoning to find anything that supported their view (and ignoring anything contrary, i.e. going to creationist material as sources and believing what they read to be true - seems very likely to have been the case seeing the unoriginal arguments they have presented). At worse it seems more likely that the WTBTS has been intellectually dishonest, but in this example at least, lying seems to be a baseless charge.

  Therefore, to me "WTBTS Lies" seems like a propaganda technique and not an educational one unless there is actual proof that intent to decieve and/or making statements that they know are untrue.
• 

  Phizzy

  They outright lied about their reason for being an N.G.O associate of the U.N

  They outright lied on a number of occasions about what they said prior to 1914.

  I could go on and on, there are numerous examples where there is no doubt, despite their own protestations.

  Lying is not a baseless charge.

  All of the examples of expressions you object to in the frist part of your post can be shown to be true, there is no need to water them down as you have tried to do, they are not erroneous.

  What I do agree with is where you say the loss of precision moves the discussion in to the emotional rather than sticking to the facts, especially if you are talking to an unawakened J.W

  I am therefore very careful how I express myself to JW's, and I am careful not to give them certain information, as my motive is to see them free if at all possible.

  But on here, preaching to the converted, at least to some degree, even the newest of "Lurkers" has some concern that not all is right with the WT, on here, I think it is fine to call a spade a spade and to entitle threads, and pepper posts with bold, down to earth truths expressed in a pithy way.
• 

  perfect1

  you Say:

  JW's, regarding accusations of pedophilia, require a confession or two witnesses. Without two witnesses (a rule that they derive from an interpretation of a bible verse), the congregation cannot take action against the accused.

  I would like to highlight your language here, in which you say JWS... REQUIRE and CONGREGATION CANNOT.

  This statement makes it seem as if there is a law which inhibits action and which no one is responsible for.

  In fact, elders and family members CHOOSE their course of action in pedophilia cases, and it is the Soceities DECISION that cases be handled in that way.

  Like Nazi Germany, and those committed of war crimes culpability lies with individuals who follow commands as well as those who make them.

  The WTS always tries to make it seem as if their rules are timeless and good given- and when they are wrong they blame it on their human imperfection.

  At no point does anyone take resposibility for their own actions in the chain.

  Your attempted objectivity instead reveals a bias, while statements such as:

  • JW's protect and harbor pedophiles
  • JW's are a pedophile's paradise

  Are in fact the RESULT of your more procedurally descriptive statement.

  I would not consider either statement to be propaganda, and your attempt NOT to appeal to emotion by describing the rules in place only makes it worse.