the funny thing here is that the efforts taken here by individuals here will never be taken by the avg JW. To google the "DR" to see if she is in fact is a medical doctor or holds a Doctorate, to contact her to see if her comments were in fact on this topic, and whether her permission was granted on this interview to be used for that website. They will look at the video and the comments by the society and go on their merry way. Confident and satisfied. Just as cattle are on the way to slaughter.
"They (WT) took me out of context", Gail Bethea-Jackson video
by Fatfreek 155 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
BizzyBee
Two points:
1) This video is sheer nonsense and this woman has no credibility at all if her words weren't taken out of context.
2) Even with access to the full video - nothing could be done with it other than her using it in a lawsuit, about which the average JW would never know.
I believe her when she says her words were lifted out of context (I guess that's three points.)
-
Death to the Pixies
Hello Mr. Morgan, Thank you for your insights.
You said:
It is false to say the Watchtower has not presented Gail’s words in a context. Specifically the Watchtower presents her interview by hyper linking Gail’s own words (i.e., “body of knowledge”) to a Watchtower published article discussing child molestation at the hands of adults
True, they do hyperlink to an article dealing with child abuse, but the point of the link was not to link to "adult" abusersspecifically against "adolesecent" abusers, but rather to help people learn about safety in general. It was a pretty general link about saftey and abuse prevention. Hardly a devious link. Since they were not, in a unique way, highlighting adults over adolesecents it can't be said to be an added context to Gail's page . Since that was not the point of the link.
The Watchtower presentation of Gail is also misleading in that it presents her video interview as “Jehovah's Witnesses' Response to Inquiries on Child Abuse Jehovah's Witnesses: Progressive Understanding of Child Abuse for Society in General”. Yet, Gail is not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and neither is she speaking for Jehovah's Witnesses.
I do not see that connection. That heading was above a seperate page involving JR Brown.. The reader would have immediately made the connection that she was not speaking unique to JWs with the Heading "Knwledge of child abuse..Society in general". Naturaly they would have thought they were speaking about Society in General and that the person was not a JW.
As for Gail’s use of the term pedophile , though the term is typically used in reference to individuals older than 16 years of age, this is not always the case. As a term, pedophilia is a clinical diagnosis, usually determined by a psychiatrist or psychologist. (The typical legal term to describe the crime committed by pedophiles is forcible sexual offense or something similar.) It is not unheard of for individuals younger than 16 to be diagnosed as pedophiles. Accordingly, it is foolish to read too much into Gail’s use of the term pedophile . In her career she has probably met more than a few youthful offenders who were diagnosed as pedophiles. When she expresses herself to a general audience she may intentionally use the term pedophile in relation to adolescent offenders so her audience understands the nature of behavior and its seriousness. The general public is painfully aware of the dangers of pedophilia. The public has little understanding of the seriousness of adolescent sexual offenders, or even a good awareness of the subject.
Anything is possible, though i suspect unlikey. But speculate seems to be all we can do at this moment. However, her last words in the video seem to bolster the idea she is not parsing words with paedophile, she seems to be speaking of child abuse and victimization sans the parsing. She simply says: I went to one of the most prestigious
social-work schools, at that time, in the country and in all of my studying,
we didn't have a course in child abuse. But as I said, even without the adult vs. adolescent point, it really stops being an issue when you take the questionable speculation on the Media Sites motivation to post the interview clip. -
Marvin Shilmer
DP writes:
“True, they do hyperlink to an article dealing with child abuse, but the point of the link was not to link to "adult" abusers specifically against "adolescent" abusers, but rather to help people learn about safety in general. It was a pretty general link about safety and abuse prevention. Hardly a devious link. Since they were not, in a unique way, highlighting adults over adolescents it can't be said to be an added context to Gail's page . Since that was not the point of the link.”
“The point of the link was not to”? And, exactly where is the objectivity in such an assertion? You complain about speculation, and then present speculation as premise in support of a preferential conclusion. Do you know what this process is called?
It is patently dishonest to include something in a quotation that is something other than the person stated or intended. Hyper linking to a third party’s words is such an insertion. Such an insertion is dishonest within a quotation unless the person quoted has indicated the point of reference as part of their statement.
DP writes:
“I do not see that connection. That heading was above a seperate page involving JR Brown.. The reader would have immediately made the connection that she was not speaking unique to JWs with the Heading "Knwledge of child abuse..Society in general". Naturaly they would have thought they were speaking about Society in General and that the person was not a JW.”
That you do not see the connection is blatantly clear in each of your responses. Anyone who searches for Gail’s video will find her interview directly linked with the statement representing her statement as the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses. For whatever reason, this is something you have apparently overlooked.
DP writes:
“However, her last words in the video seem to bolster the idea she is not parsing words with paedophile, she seems to be speaking of child abuse and victimization...”
Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that Gail was asserting at the time of the interview that parents did not recognize it a crime for a full-grown adult man to rape their little 6-year-old daughter? Please! It is not speculation to realize Gail’s remarks on this point were speaking directly to adolescent sexual offenders rather than the typical pedophile.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Death to the Pixies
The point of the link was not to”? And, exactly where is the objectivity in such an assertion? You complain about speculation, and then present speculation as premise in support of a preferential conclusion. Do you know what this process is called?
The proof is in the pudding, it is not a page unique to adults. It would naturally include what is know as "child abuse". If that somehow changed the comprehensiont of her words, what would that gain for the Media Site? Well nothing.
That you do not see the connection is blatantly clear in each of your responses. Anyone who searches for Gail’s video will find her interview directly linked with the statement representing her statement as the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses. For whatever reason, this is something you have apparently overlooked.
we must be looking at a different video, what you say does not exist on the pages I am looking at. But just relax their guy, if we are not on the same page we can work that out and go from there.
Personally I believe Gail was not being careful in her wording, and was speaking in generalities. So I cut her some slack there. I believe the intent of her quote (regardless if she did parse, though if she did she should have obviously used 'child paedophile') was to say that abuse was not taken as seriously as it should have been. Which, the WT would naturally quote to show that we need to take it seriusly. She uses a couple phrases which signal she is being very general, for instance "so to speak" , "it wasn't really" etc..etc..Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that Gail was asserting at the time of the interview that parents did not recognize it a crime for a full-grown adult man to rape their little 6-year-old daughter? Please! It is not speculation to realize Gail’s remarks on this point were speaking directly to adolescent sexual offenders rather than the typical pedophile.
-
Watkins
steve2- I can't believe you're still arguing over the definition of one word! I do hope the full video becomes available, then no speculation, it will be clear. Until then any defense is without burden of proof. The accusation of having been taken out of context by the wts came from Gail herself, so it stands as well-founded. IMO
However---- expecting a different outcome from the same actions time after time is insanity. The wts is disingenuous at best--- purposely and maliciously devious and misleading at worst. If they can't find any true support from anyone else, they just make it up!
This isn't a GYnormous thing, no--- but it's just one more nail in that coffin; one more lie to add to their already illustrious CAREER of LYING. They've butchered many many more than Ms. Jackson's quotes! The following were selected from http://home.comcast.net/~docbob1/misquotes.htm
Have a look:
Some seismologists believe that the earth is now in an active earthquake period. For example, Professor Keiiti Aki of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology speaks of "the apparent surge in intensity and frequency of major earthquakes during the last one hundred years," though stating that the period from 1500 through 1700 was as active. - 5/15/83 The Watchtower "Earthquakes - A Sign of the End?" "This is in response to your inquiry about earthquakes [EC:ESH September 24, 1982]. The apparent surge in intensity and frequency of major earthquakes during the last one hundred years is, in all probability, due to the improved recording of earthquakes and the increased vulnerability of human society to earthquake damage. The main reason is the well established plate tectonics which indicates a very steady fault motion over the past many millions of years." "A measure of earthquake strength more objective than casualty is the Richter scale. It is in general difficult to assign the Richter scale to earthquakes more than 100 years ago. An attempt, however, has been made in China, where historical records are kept in better shape than in other regions. Enclosed figures shows the Richter scale (M) of earthquakes in China during the periond of about 2000 years. The past 100 years are certainly active, but there have been periods as active as that, for example, from 1500 to 1700." - Letter from Keiiti Aki to the Watchtower Society dated September 30, 1982
12 Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - ce 18 2 Disagreements About Evolution-Why? "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." - The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859, p 133. 5 At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins' comment in the preface to his book: "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction." - ce 39 4 Could Life Originate by Chance? "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, "stranger than fiction" expresses exactly how I feel about the truth." - Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976, p. ix http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7831/booklet1.html - this site is only about the wts' gynormous dishonesty in the 'Should You Believe in the Trinity' brochure.
They are liars, pure and simple. Sorry, but it's TRUE!
watkins
-
steve2
steve2- I can't believe you're still arguing over the definition of one word! I do hope the full video becomes available, then no speculation, it will be clear. Until then any defense is without burden of proof. The accusation of having been taken out of context by the wts came from Gail herself, so it stands as well-founded. IMO
Yes, agreed, I did hammer the point a bit.
However, good that we see eye to eye on hoping the full video becomes available because then we will actually know that whether Gail Bethea-Jackson's professional opinion said was taken out of context by the Watchtower.
I'm also ready to acknowledge that my thoughts on this topic have shifted over the days as other posters have drawn attention to various aspects of this topic. As stated before, I continue to hope she was taken out of context, but I don't want to base my conclusions on "hope" - when somewhere out there is the entire video and transcript than none of us have (yet) seen.
-
steve2
These words prove that you feel GBJ's words have been taken out of context.
Am I damned by my earlier thoughts on the topic? Or am I prepared to admit I have shifted some of my views on the topic, as sometimes happens when I begin to consider points of view I may not have considered before?
At most, I'm just a bit more cautious now than I was a few days ago. I'd hate to set my views in concrete on this topic and never change them. Yet, I also appreciate that some people put enormous weight on sticking to one point of view no matter what.
-
skyking
Great work A+
-
wha happened?
anything new on this?