Laika said-
I wasn't attacking you Adam and I'm sorry that it came across that way. Just interested in your opinion. If Kate's 'going out with a bang' means she's letting the Society control her still, are we doing the same by participating on this board?
Thanks for clarifying.
Yes, that's a false equivalency, since you're assuming that all those challenging the WT beliefs in a factual, evidence-based manner are equivalent to those who 'play games' driven by a reactive and emotional response. That's a point that's been discussed repeatedly in recent threads, eg Simon's recent survey on methods used by apostates.
Now, why would someone be prone to think as you do (i.e. seemingly forgetting all about the value of facts and evidence to reach conclusion) UNLESS they ALSO were driven by emotions? Here's a hypothesis: it has something to do with choosing to lead an evidence-free life, based only on concepts like faith. Can you see that, just maybe?
I won't assume to speak as to why anyone else posts here, so can only speak for myself; however, I'm not acting out against JW rules in a contrarian manner (as if a rebellious teen), since I don't even bother to ask myself what their rules might be (I left the JWs as an unbaptized teen, and lived my life), eg I don't smoke, just to show them they can't control me (that would be reactive, a response); rather, I don't smoke, simply because I care about the HEALTH of MY lungs! My actions have NOTHING to do with JW policies.
See the difference?
But for someone like you, your participation here may very well be based on emotions, alone, and not reasoning, i.e. your participation may boil down to fighting emotion-driven actions with emotional reactions (and living up to the GB's expectations, as a result).
Point being, the answer to your question varies, and that answer is up to each individual to decide (and I'm just adding food for thought).
Laika said-
I can hardly claim to be indifferent as long as I post here imo. What do you think?
I oppose slavery (i.e. the ownership of other humans), too, since I'm not indifferent about injustice in all forms (and hopefully never will be), since you'd have to be emotionally dead and empathetically-challenged.
So in that regard, I see your point, but if we allow a sense of countering injustice to become driven by emotion more than reason, you lose your ability to think straight (and that's exactly WHY cults like JWs 'love bomb', to cloud the recruits rationality).
So yes, perhaps the statement about 'the opposite of love is not hatred, but indifference' is hyperbolic, but hence it's actually (yet) another demonstration of the problem of using analogies to convey a point, since over-extending them well-beyond their breaking point often results.
Adam