The Danger of Settlements

by Tech49 182 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  dubstepped

  Fisherman: Which one?

  Let me spell this out for you since apparently it is sheer stupidity and not you being daft.

  Fact: The dubs use a two witness rule. Fact: Children are often abused in private, without witnesses. Fact: If no second witness is to be found, elders will not act. Fact: Jehovah's Witnesses have discouraged members from going to authorities because it might bring reproach on Jehovah's name. Fact: That has resulted in pedophiles roaming freely in the organization and abusing more children. Fact: The ARC was appalled at the handling of these situations by Jehovah's Witnesses. Fact: Despite all evidence, Fisherman continues to defend this organization.
  

  I could go into the sexually repressed culture and how it often leads to abuse and studies on such. I could go into experiences of kids that I grew up with that were molested with impunity in the organization. But really, all I want to focus on is this:

  Fisherman is reflective of this organization and it's qualities. You are what you worship.

  Now, my questions to you fisherman. Do you feel that Jehovah's Witnesses do all that they should do for the protection of children? Do you think that my facts above are actually false, and if so, why? Why do you defend an organization that forces little girls to answer sexually explicit questions in front of grown men and that outright refuses to utilize women in such roles? Should an organization that claims to be moral be fighting against truth and help for those damaged by such abuse, or should that organization be fighting for more rights and help for those victims? Your turn to answer my questions.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  dubstepped

  Fact: I disagree with your interpretations.

  Fact: ARC has powers to investigate. And to make recommendations to the Australian government. But as Richard Oliver pointed out, ARC is not a Court.

  Fact: An accusation may or may not be true.
• 

  dubstepped

  Fact: That was weak Fisherman. You cannot answer even simple questions yet demand it of others. Very sad.

  Fact: Fisherman defends an organization that doesn't defend it's most vulnerable members, the children within it's grip, to the ability that it can. That says a lot about you. Again, very sad.
• 

  Fisherman

  You cannot answer even simple questions yet demand it of others. - dubstepped

  I did not make assertions, you did.

  organization that doesn't defend it's most vulnerable members, the children within it's grip, to the ability that it can - dubstepped

  If you are refering to wt, I do not believe that your statement is true.
  
  
• 

  dubstepped

  No, I produced facts. Your answers are disingenuous and an attempt to obfuscate at best, much like the master that you serve, the Watchtower. You have presented absolutely nothing in this discussion, but we all know how you feel about protecting the pedophile paradise of the organization now. Thanks for participating in this discussion. I have better things to do than to continue arguing with a JW drone.
• 

  steve2

  "And to make recommendations to the Australian government."

  Here's how I make sense of it (and apologies beforehand if I have got some of the stages min the wrong order or left out any stages):
  

  The ARC reports have been tabled in parliament which can then set up parliamentary select committees to review findings which then serves as the basis for developing policies and recommendations relevant to the findings. These are then presented to parliament to consider in terms of legislation which is discussed/debated in the House and may eventually be passed into legislation.

  So, whilst the ARC is not a Court in the usual sense of the word, it does the groundwork that could pave the way for changes in legislation and law which subsequently informs Court proceedings.
• 

  Vidiot

  Fisherman - "...if you are saying that children are in danger of getting hurt in WT environment which is what I think that you are saying, I challenge you to prove it."

  The sheer f**king reems of of anecdotal evidence that we read about here and all over the net (and it's the same f**king story over and over and over again) should be all the evidence anyone with half a brain needs.
• 

  Fisherman

  the ARC is not a Court

  That is true. The ARC is not a court of law.

  "This report contains the Royal Commission’s final recommendations on Working with Children Checks. This report addresses...."

  Courts of law determine what are the facts and what is just and proper. It is the business of the Courts to administer justice. And in the US, a judge or Court is impartial and hears both sides of the story before it decides.

  
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  $&@-€£%## -vid

  ok
• 

  Fisherman

  No, I produced facts. dubstepped

  No you didn't; only unsubstantiated assertions.

  
  

  Your answers are disingenuous and an attempt to obfuscate at best.

  No they are not.