does honesty need to be harsh?

by Ravyn 210 Replies latest members adult

• 

  wasasister

  aghrrrrrr
• 

  AlanF

  Onacruse said:

  :: The problem with analogies like this is that they're false. Humans are not like springs of water, fig trees or grape vines. They're multi-faceted creatures, not one-dimensional inanimate objects or vegetables.

  : Alan, you totally missed the point of that analogy.

  Not at all. You missed the point that the analogy is false, as I will explain.

  : The point is that what people say and do is a reflection of what they are inside.

  Maybe, maybe not. Such a statement shows black and white thinking. Of course, sometimes what you say is true. HS gave the example of Jesus' harshly condemning the Pharisees. Was that a reflection of harshness on his part, or of honesty in telling a truth that needed to be told? Moses is said to have been the meekest man on the face of the earth, yet in a fit of righteous anger he killed an abusive man. You yourself, although kind and mild, could be provoked to harsh words or actions if pushed far enough, and your reactions would likely be justified. Would that mean that you're not kind and mild?

  This is what I mean by multi-faceted. People are always mixes of good and bad, love and hate, mildness and harshness, ying and yang.

  If a person shows a loving attitude most of the time, but on occasion becomes harsh, then according to your analogy, what is he? Loving or harsh? If loving, then how could this "spring" ever put forth "bitter water"? But if harsh, how could this "spring" ever put forth "sweet water"?

  : If we make angry and demeaning comments, it's because we have angry and demeaning feelings. Is it healthy to have those feelings?

  Sometimes, yes. Does not the biblical God show us the way here? Does righteous anger not exist?

  : Are there perhaps unresolved issues that need our first attention?

  That entirely depends on the person you're talking about. But of course, virtually everyone has "unresolved issues". But this line of dialog is irrelevant to the overall point of this thread.

  : Is it possible that by venting such spleen on a db we are simply side-stepping the challenge to move on to a healthier and more peaceful life?

  Again this is not relevant to the point of the thread.

  At any rate, you're assuming that everyone ought to "move on to a healthier and more peaceful life", but what gives you the right to define "healthier" or "more peaceful" for anyone besides yourself?

  : If we act like lambs instead of lions, are we afraid that somehow our "stature" is at risk?

  Again irrelevant, for the reasons stated above.

  :: Just how long would you put up with someone continually lying about you?

  : Those who know me, or who care to know me, will soon enough realize that those lies for what they are, and will disregard them.

  Not necessarily, as we discussed privately. People being what they are, it is often the case that lies stick. People are often stupid enough to buy into the first judgment they hear second hand about someone else, and will not change their opinion no matter what further evidence comes along. That could damage what could have been a rewarding and productive relationship. Experience also shows that a number of people have a sort of chicken mentality, where when they see a fellow chicken starting to get beat up and not defending itself, they see blood and join in.

  But of course, there's nothing like having your own ox gored. There is also the element of pride, in that no one ought to put up with being lied about. What does it say about someone who is afraid to defend themselves against gross lies?

  : If someone doesn't care to know me, and chooses to believe those lies, then that's their business.

  Ditto.

  : Anything I say in self-defense would be dismissed anyway.

  Think about what you wrote here. You're saying that once people make false judgments, they're too stupid or stubborn to change them. True of some, but not most.

  : And to reduce myself to the level of name-calling and judgmental categorization is just that: a reduction of myself. Just because I see a spade doesn't mean that I have to compulsively call it a spade; I can just walk away from the card table.

  Sometimes that may be true. Sometimes calling a spade a spade is just what is needed. See my earlier post of an email dialog with someone who is now a friend, where my calling a spade a spade was just what he needed to wake up.

  : Unless tangible harm was being done to me (e.g. someone accuses me of being a child abuser, and the cops show up at my door), I'd simply ignore each and every one of the accusations you listed.

  There's nothing like having your own ox gored. You ain't been there, done that. In fact, you're even now evolving in the direction of being unafraid to call a spade a spade as you see fit, even though you think it might be offensive. Bravo!

  :: Given that the above example is based on actual statements by Prisca to me, do you still think your example represents the real situation? Is it fair?

  : I've very little idea what's transpired between you and Prisca, and my posts on this topic are not intended as a commentary about whatever bad water has passed between you two. But, if Prisca says something derogatory about you, I dismiss it, because I know you for the kind and caring person that you are.

  You know me personally, from in-person contact and many phone conversations. If you knew me only from online posts, you might have a rather different impression, especially if you thought that Prisca's lies might hold some weight.

  I note that you have not answered my questions; you've skirted them. Why?

  Let me ask another one: What would your attitude be towards a poster who continually told lies about you every chance he got? How long would you put up with it?

  : If you say something derogatory about Prisca, I dismiss it, because I know Prisca for the kind and caring person that she appears to be in her posts here.

  In other words, when you see for yourself that Prisca tells demeaning lies about me, and I defend myself by stating that she has lied, and make judgments about her mental condition because of those lies, you dismiss it? I think that you're not really being truthful here, because you would have to dismiss my defense against lies as further lies -- and you know that I do not tell lies.

  : I credit both of you for that good I see, and demerit neither of you for your "flaws;" and thereby I sleep peacefully at night.

  So telling lies about me is alright with you?

  :: I have to say that it appears that you, like so many other posters to this and related threads, have simply not done your homework by reading over the complete threads, and so really have no business commenting.

  : Really?

  Perhaps you did, and yet still think that it's ok to lie about people. If so I have sorely misjudged you.

  : I've read and re-read all the posts on this thread several times. Maybe I see them, or selectively comment about them, from a different perspective or with a different emphasis than you...and somehow I'm thereby disqualified from comment? Gimme a break.

  I truly don't think that you've thought out all the angles of this.

  AlanF
• 

  hillary_step

  Danny,

  You sir are more of a egomanical, self absorbed, pompus windbag........than I ever realized.

  Careful, you may have the TeeJay after you trying to protect Alan from being hurt by your cutting words....That would certainly cause an eclipse, or even two.....

  Best regards - HS
• 

  hillary_step

  Wasasister,

  aghrrrrrr

  Without doubt the most sensible comment made to date on this thread....lol

  Thank you - HS
• 

  wasasister
• 

  teejay

  My goodness, Alan. Your post is so full of lgoical fallacies it's difficult to know where to begin!

  For others, who still may think that "harsh methods" never work, take a hint from "Frank".

  My, how you have taken to patting yourself on the back here lately for "victories" small and lar... well... small victories! It appears that you take no little pride in helping Frank to see the foolishness of his ways but the anecdote really has no bearing on this discussion. No one has yet to say that harsh "never works" Alan; only that mild is better and equally effective – if not more so. Is it possible to rescue a child from a burning building by throwing it out the window? Sure, but why risk broken limbs or a concussion when there's a better way at hand?

  If you think that "friendlier" words than mine would have woken him up, I'll email him your response and let him decide whether to respond.

  This is a false premise that has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Even if Frank responded today to our query as honestly as he could, there would be no way possible for him to answer in any objective fashion. Who is here to say that there could not have been a kind word or phrase or argument, kindly expressed -- one that you or I might never have thought of at that time -- that would have been as persuasive with Frank as what you did? I think you have delusions, Alan... thinking, as the Good Book says, more of yourself than you really ought.

  For still others, please tell me how many people you've helped get out of the JW cult over the years, explain to me your methods, and post your proof. Also tell me how much time and effort you've put into doing it.

  This, too, is a "proof" whose importance is only subjective. Could you first post empirical evidence attesting to the numbers of people that YOUR in-your-face methods have helped? I'd, for one, be interested to see what figures you might present.

  As it is, you may have missed the interchange between Onacruse and SixofNine wherein Six ventured the guess that you might have helped ten or more... with the following proviso that you might find interesting:

  "The fact remains that there is no way (at least that I know of) to quantitatively evaluate which "method" is more effective. " So I would never attempt it or ask anyone for such evidence.... it would just be silly.

  During this phase of the discussion, the literary masterpiece Crisis of Conscience was mentioned, and thought was given to 1. the manner in which Ray presented his evidence (sans gradeschool insults), and 2. the untold TENS OF THOUSANDS he's helped. Is there a connection between 1 and 2? I believe there is. Had Ray been brusque in his presentation, the number of people he eventually helped would not be near what it is.

  So brag on yourself if you must, Alan, but I'm sorry dude... your numbers (all ten or more of them) pale when compared to the mild approach of Ray Franz.

  Or are your efforts merely theoretical undertakings launched from the safety of an impersonal discussion board where you have nothing at stake but a bit of finger exercise? Frankly, I care nothing for the opinions of Monday morning quarterbacks.

  No need to be defensive, Alan. Just kinder.
• 

  SixofNine

  Just push the button Wasa, you can do eeet!!
• 

  DannyBear

  hillary_step,

  DannyBear learning to be more harsh....when harsh is required.
• 

  wasasister

  Well, Hillary, thank you kindly, but my expression of exaspiration was directed towards some posting glitch rather than the discussion at hand (which I personally feel has rendered some good things).

  I took pains to write out a rather lengthy and (in my own head) stunningly insightful post, only to have my diatribe fragmented. I went to the trouble of rebooting my computer, but to no avail.

  Anyway, those perhaps more qualified than my humble self have expressed my thoughts. I summarize my brilliantly worded post thusly:

  "Yeah, what Rem said."
• 

  teejay

  Carrying those goal-posts around on your shoulders all day, ready for replanting in some new field whenever you see fit must be very tiring, but I assure you I am not going there! -- hillary_step

  Not as tiring as you might think, HS, but you wouldn't know, I guess.

  You use illustrations that have nothing in common with an on-line scenario, draw allusions to harshness outside of an on-line scenario and suddenly start pretending that you were only dealing with an on-line scenario to begin with!

  As I said and you failed to understand, when the topic tangentially turned to burning buildings, onrushing locomotives, and belligerent suitors, I was forced to deal with it... always bringing the topic back to it's true center, as you discovered.

  No go TJ, you can forget taking this issue into Board moderator politics, your latest shift in issues spurred on no doubt by RF’s foolish accusations earlier this evening.

  RF's comments, though humorous, had nothing to do with my original thesis, posted in the very first paragraph in my very first post in this thread.

  The points that I have continually made and re-made, and that are a matter of public record in this thread, have not changed from my first post until my last. Yours however vacillate like the last policeman on a Keystone Cops movie as he is slung around from pillar to post, while you seek to find some sort of intellectual direction.

  While you say that your somewhat obscure (and seemingly contradictory) comments all say essentially the same thing, it is left to the reader to discern who vacillated. In clear and unambiguous terms, I stated at the ouset that there is no place HERE ON THE FORUM for harsh language and I hold to that position still. Period.