Cedars said-
Personally I think it's unfortunate that a figure of 250,000 deaths has been put forward when it cannot be supported by any meaningful data. My approach to criticizing Watchtower is that they are giving us a treasure trove of material already without any need to resort to making stuff up, and damaging our argument in the process.
Problem with some making wild-ass claims is that it damages the CREDIBILITY of ALL ex-JWs, not just the argument of the one making the claim (or just only their credibility).
Like it or not, all critics of the WTBTS are in this dog-fight together, i.e. if a random JW reads something that's literally incredible, it's only going to give them an excuse to dismiss ALL of our efforts (not that it takes much indication of errors for them to reach a conclusion that they're already primed to reach, dependng on their individual circumstances). So JWfacts is tied to your efforts, and is tied to my efforts, etc, since little excuse is needed to dismiss all sites with the broad brush the GB paints so-called "apostates" with: bitter ex-JWs who are willing to lie and deceive about the "Truth".
Marvin's research is excellent and I have quoted it on JWsurvey with a link so that people can check out the data for themselves. Even if the figure is lower than 50,000, let's say more in the region of slimboyfat's 29,000, that is still a grotesque bodycount for any cult to lay claim to. You could imagine the international uproar if 29,000 were to simultaneously die tomorrow in a cult suicide pact. But spread the carnage over many decades and nobody bats an eyelid. This information NEEDS exposure, and we shouldn't be ashamed of challenging the public to think on this issue.
Even if the # of deaths is significantly lower, that's no less true. Why risk sacrificing one's credibility in a futile effort to raise awareness via exaggeration and hyperbole, misleading the public?
With all that said, I'm not sure the tone of this thread sits right with me. In the course of writing for JWsurvey I have made a fair number of mistakes requiring corrections or retractions, and if each of those mistakes had been gleefully leapt upon as subjects of debate on JWN as has happened here, it would have been soul destroying. Problems like this could be sorted out with a simple email, or twitter/facebook personal message, politely saying, "I noticed you gave this information, where did you get it from? Would you mind deleting the tweet/thread/comment if it is incorrect?"
Would you prefer a private reproof, then, maybe being taken into the back room for counseling?
Instead, all too often the nuclear option of launching a JWN discussion and naming names is pursued first.
"The nuclear option"? Hyperbolize much?
The reason(s) should be clear:
A public discussion keeps everyone on the up-and-up, with no "secrets". But even more importantly, it actually attracts those talented people who can contribute their expertise and assist with the fact-checking (like Simon, or Besty, who's no stranger to analyzing stats and claims), relying on the power of the collective mind. By discussing the issue, it actually gets more people involved in the effort, and builds solidarity of the group.
But even more importantly, a public discussion PUBLICIZES the issue amongst the intended target audience: JWs who may be lurking.
If you believe the general public gives a hoot about even 2.5 mil deaths (!) occurring over a 50 yr period due to the odd crackpot beliefs of a Christian cult, I suspect you're overlooking the assumption under which most humans operate: they ask themselves, "what is the harm in it for me if these people decide to become martyrs"? They assume less traffic on their commute, or one less doorbell to answer on a Saturday morning. Most educated non-JWs would be more likely to contribute funds dedicated to building a nice Darwin Awards Memorial with the names of these "JW martyrs" carved in stone, seeing that freedom of religious worship apparently includes the right to die from a preventable death.
Humans generally operate in their self-interests, alone, and that is exactly WHY the public ALSO hates those who'd decieve them; they too are looking for excuses to alleviate any guilt they may experience for focusing only on themselves, thus back-firing on the ones who'd deceive them (who are so blinded to that fact, usually so consumed in their Don Quixotish "cause" as to recognize that they're not exactly "unbiased", and are hence willing to harbor tendencies to stretch claims to support "their" agenda).
That's why the active JWs who may be lurking need to SEE FOR THEMSELVES that the ONLY people who are harmed by refusing a blood transfusion is THEMSELVES and their loved ones, as they're willing to die on cue to obey orders given from their GB.
The Ex-JW community's infighting and readiness to point fingers, which I think is very much a product of our shared cult experience, is its achilles heel - and something of which I am frankly ashamed. Solidarity and kinship is not a commodity that is as abundant as it should be for a group taking on an adversary as wily and united as the Watchtower.
I'm assuming that you're not familiar with how the World operates outside of JW Land, then: this IS not "infighting" or "readiness to point fingers" as you say, but a discussion that tries to determine "truths", whether the topic of discussion is global climate change, Atwill's recent thesis, or the harm of JW blood policy.
To the contrary, what are the groups that discourage and/or prohibit in-fighting and don't allow free and open discussions, instead insisting on presenting the appearance of harmonous agreement, spoken in chorus? THAT kind of policy is lauded by the group that's claimed to be despised: WTBTS. Are you sure you're mentally out?
Adam
