Honest survey question on effectiveness of 'apostacy'

by Simon 178 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  You have a very Cedars-esque way of saying that others are either a) not answering the question or b) changing the subject when you are clearly not having any effect in convincing anyone of your point. Please keep in mind that I did not solicit anything from you, yet you sent me two PMs calling me a coward for my initial idea of fading. Physician heal thyself. Don't get on your high horse and lecture me about being mean or vindictive.

  Ok back to the 'subject'. I've been answering it the entire time but unfortunately you are too obtuse to read into it. Cedars gives it and takes it and he has plenty of threads where he has tried to bully people into being silent and/or agreeing with him. My posts weren't so much about him personally, but at AAWA in general and the pompous attitude he had as president of that organisation. But if you must know, I found him to be a real ass when you took a position contrary to his. Live by the sword, die by the sword. You don't get to run ramshod around this forum thinking you own the goddamn place and not expect to get some sort of blowback. Cedars for his part keeps on bringing up my name and then expresses surprise when I respond. I had let it go, but he kept it up by bringing me into it, as he has done twice on his FB thread

  You, for your part, just can't get over the fact that we have had words before and you did not like the outcome of it. Which is perfectly fine, I hardly think it's anything worth going over again. But it's hard to escape the inevitable conclusion that you've been waiting to strike back at me. Guess what? You got it right back, pal.
• 

  144001

  Good points, Adamah. I may not have made it clear, but I do believe that we should call others out when we have issues with what they're doing here. Strict scrutiny is healthy for all, and I do not take issue with any of the debate that occurred re: AAWA, except the making of criminal allegations regarding conduct that hurt no one. If the alleged crime had actually hurt someone, I would be ok with the criminal allegations as well. But as here, where no one is hurt, I think we should avoid attacking each other in ways that could actually result in harm to someone that is an opposer of the WTBTS.

  I hear your "ends justify the means" argument, but I don't think that's the issue here. I'm not justifying anything Cedars did, and have my own issues with what happened with AAWA. But the alleged crimes attributed to Cedars by Malvinas and certain others here harmed no one, and I see no justification for taking action that had the potential to cause him legal harm.

  I do agree that we need to clean up the garbage that some in the ex-JW community choose to spread and which reflects poorly upon all of us, but I do not believe that we need to go all out to inflict damage upon the individualsiwe have issues with. The question I raise is, where do we draw the line on what sort of conduct is appropriate to respond to ex-JW activity that we are offended by because we believe it to be dishonest, etc.? Is it OK to make a real effort to harm someone, because we don't believe in what they have to say, or their method of saying it?
• 

  mind blown

  I see no justification for taking action that had the potential to cause him legal harm.

  On that I do not agree. There were ones who could have lost families or did lose families because of that BS! There was damage done. Why the hell do you think we have atty's ? For damage.

  So we should give him special treatment because of his site? Articles on a website? He has proven to be ego driven, time and time again, and as you can see by his recent blurb....he once again is NOT representative of the XJW community.

  I guess some have forgotten about the harm the WT (with it's excusable crimes and personaity) has affected many lives, like dear Ompa and many others.

  That's why the term DANGEROUS is used.
• 

  144001

  Malvinas,

  

  You can run from your conduct, but it doesn't change what you've done, or what others think of what you've done. It's pretty pathetic that you're now stooping to calling me "Cedars-esque." For what it's worth, I'd rather be accused of being "Cedars-esque" than "Malvinas-Esque." I've had my issues with Cedars in the past, but I've never seen him intentionally try to harm anyone, like you did.
• 

  Etude

  The reason I started as a JW at the age of 16 was because, while watching the world and the things that happened in it, I had an intrinsic need for justice and protection. Because of some opportune people that showed up at my house, that need was hijacked and misdirected. I suppose that I was shaped by my environment, not just about the concept of God but also by seeing a challenge of established views. After all, the Hippie Movement set the tone for that in my generation.

  So, my drive to question was already there. I guess it just didn’t stop after I swallowed the fairy tale. I remember crossing Columbia Heights going from one Bethel building to another and seeing a group of apostates with signs picketing on the side walk. I had never seen that before. Even though I looked at them with a little disdain, I do remember wanting to know what they were protesting about and why they were so brazen to be in public that way. Later on, when I had known for a while that we were not supposed to speak to people who had left the “Truth”, I still maintained contact with an ex-sister who I had determined was a decent human being. I guess it was the inconsistencies I observed while a JW that made them implode in my mind.

  To consider your question Simon, whether apostasy (as I saw it) was effective in my case, it’s difficult for me to tell which came first: whether my questioning attitude drove me out or examples of people (apostates) made me leave. I think it was the first case. Many other people had the same examples I faced and never got out. So, I don’t think one can actually argue against the colossal edifice of rules and justifications the WTBTS has built and cause people to leave, even with logic. It seems to me that the exit process is a very individual journey.

  Still, I feel a sense of duty pointing out how wrong a person can be when they aren’t logical about they believe and ignore hard evidence. When I was a “witless”, I spoke at his door with a Catholic man. He said to me that his parents were Catholic, he was baptized a Catholic and that he would die a Catholic (even if he seldom went to mass or even followed Catholicism well). I had just demonstrated to him that Mary was not always a virgin. But that didn’t matter to him enough to change the belief of her beatification, what mattered (I suppose) was the tradition he inherited and the idea that he had to have something with which to identify. At least, I felt that I had given him a piece of information that corrected his understanding. Beyond that, it seems that it is an individual responsibility whether the person acts on that or not. It works for some people and it doesn’t work with others. I never really know. But whether it works or not, I can’t help but argue against nonsense. Short of cult deprogramming, the way they used to do it in the late 1960s and 1970s, I don’t see a way to get somebody out who doesn’t want to get out.

  So, if activism against the JWs means having a fervent desire to correct a wrong, I guess I’m one. But it’s much more than that. For me, questioning in light of doubt is a universal drive I have. It doesn’t really matter what it’s about.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  A marathon runner when you are doing the exact same thing, only that you are just repeating the same things over and over again. Who ever said I am 'running from my conduct'? It's all right there. What I was saying at the time was also in line with what several others on both sides were saying (for your reference, this was right around the time you said our advice was like your turds). So by my conduct I was intentionally trying to cause him harm? So now you can read minds? How do you know what my motives are? I have stated them for the record, but you keep glossing them over and claiming I am either changing the subject, personally attacking you or cedars, or whatever else you are thinking at this time. If you want to embrace the Cedars label then by all means, do so. His train has left and you hardly have any posse of your own. As for my name, I would prefer to be left in a category by myself. But you know, I can't and wont force anyone to acceed to my wishes.

  So to your tired old point that I tried to harm Cedars: He did it himself. He signed papers or had people willingly sign them for him that were fictitious. He didn't need me to harm him. He was doing quite a fine job of that himself. I reserve the right to call him and his organisation out on things that I knew to be illegal in forum. It is not up to you to tell me differently. Site management could have shut it down, but they did not. If they did not think it necessary to shut down conversation about the whole alias business, then why should we take you as a moral authority on it?
• 

  144001

  " There were ones who could have lost families or did lose families because of that BS! "

  Mindblown,

  Who could have lost families over the alleged misrepresentation in the organizational documents of AAWA? No one. Instead, that risk (and the outings that occured) was attributable to the Facebook nonsense that AAWA was responsible for. But the Facebook debacle did not involve any criminal conduct that I am aware of.

  If we don't like something someone here does, are there no moral limits to what we will do in response? I don't have much respect for Malvinas' conduct that I've taken issue with, but I certainly have no desire for Malvinas, or anyone else here, to suffer any harm, and especially not at my behest. If I knew that she was cheating on her taxes, would my dislike of things she's posted here justify me going to the authorities to turn her in, even if I knew that she would never find out that it was me who turned her in? I certainly don't believe that it would. But some would disagree.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  If I knew that she was cheating on her taxes, would my dislike of things she's posted here justify me going to the authorities to turn her in, even if I knew that she would never find out that it was me who turned her in?

  You still don't get it. No one to my knowledge turned him in or seriously threatened to turn him in. You still cling to your false analogy that talking about it heatedly in forum is the same as turning him in. It's not. HUGE difference between talking about it and out and about ratting on him to the authorities.

  He should have never put himself in that position. Maybe it wasn't his call, but it still reeks of horrible judgment to use a fictitious name on a legal incorporation document.
• 

  mind blown

  ....Facebook nonsense that AAWA ??

  That is the same exact attitude Cedars runs on......

  I can see your reasoning is more to plead your case, instead of a sincere concern for the harm it really did to people. Put yourself in their shoes for at least a moment. Yes, there was damage done. He's attitude regarding the whole outting was disgusting and for anyone to excuse him for ANYTHING is a fool regardless ....

  It's not like a car was stolen. This is a community with a loss so great....of not only our own lives of time spent being used, abused, loss of education, money, etc etc......with the added separation of loved ones ......as well as suicide......
• 

  144001

  You get it, Malvinas, but you're trying to hide the point with more nonsense.

  This is a public forum, that you knew, or should have known, is likely to be monitored by the Watchtower, and its legal department. Making public accusations of criminal misconduct about a guy who has been publicly bashing the WT in blogs, YouTube postings, etc., is something they are likely to notice. You seem too smart to me to be ignorant of this fact, and I don't believe that you are.

  If they (the WTBTS) thought they had something, and ran with it, it could have resulted in trouble for Cedars, even if that risk was small. By the intentional act of publicly accusing him of criminal conduct on a forum that you knew or should have known is likely to be monitored by the Watcthower, you did in fact intentionally try to harm him.

  Poop and turds will not change that.