does honesty need to be harsh?

by Ravyn 210 Replies latest members adult

• 

  DannyBear

  Onacruse,

  ****"Craig, perhaps you're so (too?) diffident simply because you're still more or less acting according to your JW conditioning?" This is a very real possibility. Perhaps a year or two down the line I'll be unrecognizably more strident and confrontational than I am now. ****

  As I look back over the bumps in the road life seems to deliver, almost without exception everyone of them was exacerbated by my being strident and confrontational.

  In very recent years I have witnessed fellow associates at work, lose their jobs by exercising to strident and confrontational methods in the work place. Some of these guys were absolutely in the right, to act and feel the way they did. Yet because they took an unbending, in your face stand they are now unemployed. Some have contacted me saying that they wish they could have been more diplomatic.

  Those type lessons take a toll on the pocket book, not to mention the bridges one burns in the process. Burning bridges by demeaning, crushing the spirit of those we meet on line, people we share a common bond of surviving the ravages of membership in a cult, is to me the most assinine of conduct. What possible reward can come from such harshness?

  So Onacruse I hope the opposite for you. It took me many years out of the org. to recognize the judgemental, strident, confrontational side of my personality was still very visible. When I saw it was a handicap, is when I started turning the corner in all my relationships.

  All of the above by no means means that you turn into a pushover, or some kind of wallflower. In fact the exercise of restraint in the area of harsh to other's, is in the purest sense a very manly, grown up way of dealing with others.

  Danny
• 

  hillary_step

  Onacruse,

  I didn't quote James 3:11, 12 as if it has any intrinsic authority. What Jesus supposedly said to the Pharisees also has no instrinsic authority, and doesn't prove that harshness is needed to validate honesty.

  I admit to being puzzled by your comment. You seemed to be quoting Scripture to establish your viewpoint. If this is *not* the case, why did you quote it? I replied with another quotation from the Bible to establish that the Bible, which you seem to have quoted to affirm a viewpoint, does actually contain other viewpoints. If Jesus did indeed utter those words, he did so from necessity judging from the C1st history of religious authority in Israel, and was quite correct in his harsh attack on a hypocritical and unjust theological system that caused misery and grief to thousands.

  When a murderous political regime is described as murderous, these words are very harsh, but they are also very honest. When a person who cheats widowers of their means of life are called ‘’cheats’ these words are harsh, but honest. History is filled with such courageous and harsh denunciations of oppressive regimes, political, social and political. Harsh, but honest.

  Frankly, I cannot see why this point is so difficult for so many to accept. What needs to be discussed is not whether honesty needs to be harsh, as clearly in some situations it certainly does need to be to validate an issue, but the *degree* of harshness that is used in an online situation when one person disagrees with another. In this aspect, I agree with many that harshness is often shown in unnecessary situations and causes pain when it should not.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  Mulan

  Contrast that with my dear departed TACTLESS father, who once looked at me and said out the clear blue sky: "You're getting Aunt Nell's hips." Grrrrrr.

  This reminded me of something my 90 year old father said to me recently. "Are you still going to Weight Watchers?" (yes I am) "I suppose it will start to show soon."

  It really irritated me. He is legally blind. I wanted to yell at him "How the HELL can you tell the difference?" But he is old and didn't mean anything. It still irritated me.
• 

  hillary_step

  TJ,

  Either the bible is true / inspired or it's not. If it's true, then we have to accept, not just what Jesus said (quoted above by hillary_step) but also who the bible said Jesus was.

  It matters not a jot whether Jesus existed or not in the establishment of this principle, so clear to see that I am a little puzzled as to why it is even being debated. His statement harshly condemning a repressive religious and political regime is certainly not unique. Thousands of people have over centuries spoken out *harshly* against oppression, and many paid dearly for their honest but *harsh* words. Harshness was needed to validate the honesty of the statement. Belief in the Bible or Jesus is not exclusive to understanding this ethical scenario.

  Perhaps Wilberforce should have been a little less harsh in his condemnation of slavery in the House Of Commons, or Kaj Munk for his literary attack on the National Socialists?

  HS
• 

  rocketman

  I think we can be honest without resorting to being harsh. It just takes more effort.
• 

  Brummie

  "Are you still going to Weight Watchers?" (yes I am) "I suppose it will start to show soon."

  I'm laughing my socks off, sorry, we guys have the nack of putting our foot in it.

  Brummie
• 

  teejay

  >>> This reminded me of something my 90 year old father said to me recently. It really irritated me. -- Mulan

  That it irritated you is understandable. The question is: did it motivate you? Was the irritating comment a revelation, helping you to see a vital truth that had been previously unseen? In the end, were you glad he said it?

  ==========================

  >>> It matters not a jot whether Jesus existed or not in the establishment of this principle... Harshness was needed to validate the honesty of the statement. -- hillary_step

  I guess, HS, that therein lies the crux of this debate. On one side are those who feel that harshness makes a statement more honest and truthful. On the other side are those who think the truth itself is enough. I'm squarely on the side of the latter group.

  >>> Perhaps Wilberforce should have been a little less harsh in his condemnation of slavery in the House Of Commons, or Kaj Munk for his literary attack on the National Socialists?

  Pardon my ignorance of any knowledge of the people you mention, but I would think it quite possible to speak harshly of slavery without speaking harshly of those who owned slaves and still establish the overwhelming truth of your position. The matter of slavery, BTW, is a fitting comparison to this forum and those who use it. I think it is quite possible, not to mention very effective, to speak harshly of the Watchtower Society, establishing the truth of that position, without becoming abusive toward individual JWs.

  Having accomplished the ugly falsehood that lies at the heart of the Watchtower Society, what good could possibly be gained by calling a JW a "blind, brain-dead idiot"? I believe that doing so, as DannyBear has so eloquently shown, does nothing but break the spirit of people even more than was already done by the Watchtower Society. It may also break the spirit of those who are only reading. It might forever stifle a freeness of speech, the very thing that so many need.

  I believe it was Danny who also said that more of us should give the thinking ability of lurking JWs a bit more credit. I can speak to the truth of that. Ex-JWs who were prone to harsh language never did anything to hasten or ease my departure from the mental slavery of the Organization. For me, it was the quiet, non-confrontational, reasoned TRUTH that did.
• 

  Prisca

  Alan,

  I have never seen the need to insult you or cast asperations on your good character (allegedly) unless you do the same to others. When you are called upon it, you call such insults "opinions". Yet what I say are "lies".

  Very interesting revelation about your character Alan, particularly since you have chosen to keep score of all of my "opinions".

  Carry on boys, carry on. Just observing an interesting character flaw of good ole Al's.

  BTW Six, perhaps you could give us some information on how "wildly sucessful" Alan has been with people out of the JWs? Is this with just JWs, or other cults as well? I'd be interested in your documented evidence.
• 

  hillary_step

  TJ,

  Having accomplished the ugly falsehood that lies at the heart of the Watchtower Society, what good could possibly be gained by calling a JW a "blind, brain-dead idiot"? I believe that doing so, as DannyBear has so eloquently shown, does nothing but break the spirit of people even more than was already done by the Watchtower Society. It may also break the spirit of those who are only reading. It might forever stifle a freeness of speech, the very thing that so many need.

  Speaking honestly and hopefully not harshly TJ, it seems a little obvious that throughout this thread you have had *one* person in mind as you have made your points, and that person is AlanF.

  Please do not start asking for 'evidence' as I hate that game, but I did learn long ago how to read between the lines of an injured heart. It is not my place to defend AlanF, or indeed condemn him for the use of language that you obviously find disturbing. I feel that I have successfully argued that 'harshness' in the written word is sometimes justified in the validation of important issues. I have also argued that what is identified as an important issue to one person, may not be to another, hence hurt feelings when 'harshness' is used on online discussion boards in validating an issue.

  I have a lot of time for you TJ, you seem like a decent person and I enjoy most of your posts, especially the posts that have a more creative edge to your writing, but I must suggest to you that when you argue issues on this Board you try to bury the past upsets that you have had with persons whom you have identified in the past in disparaging tones as the 'elite' on this Board and try to divorce personalities from your posts.

  For example, you wrote to Six, ‘I know that you are a fan of AlanF'…etc.etc. Can you not see that your agenda is once again bought into focus by such insulting statements. I have great respect for AlanF, view him as a friend, but certainly do not agree with him over everything and am not his ‘fan’. How do you know that Six does not have a similar relationship with AlanF? A person may agree with AlanF because he happens to be right about an issue and disagree with you because you happen to be wrong.

  Danny is correct that ‘lurkers’ should be dignified by being granted some level of intelligence, but you must also do that for those who post to this Board that may agree with AlanF and disagree with you, without resorting to categorizing them.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  onacruse

  HS, note that I said "I'm reminded of that scripture..." Also, I deliberately wrote "scripture," not "Scripture." I quoted James because I value whatever the Bible says that jives with the modicum of common sense that I'm beginning to develop. But as an authoritative proof-positive reference? No; no more than any philosopher, scientist, sociologist, or theologian (etc).

  was quite correct in his harsh attack on a hypocritical and unjust theological system that caused misery and grief to thousands.

  I fully agree with that principle. If there was a Goliath-killing stone out there that would take out the WTS, as a system, in one fell swoop, I can only hope that I'd be able to add my hand to the slingshot . My other posts here have made it obvious that I've absolutely no love lost for the WTS, as an organization. To that end, I'm working on a project that may, in some small way, mercilessly (yes, I can go for the jugular) add to the demise of the org. But as for attacking individuals? No, no, a thousand times no!!!

  In this aspect, I agree with many that harshness is often shown in unnecessary situations and causes pain when it should not.

  I submit that "troll-hunting" and "I-found-a-troll" mentality, with the "Medal of Honor" that goes to those who pride themselves in such excursions, is what causes the vast majority of this needless and avoidable pain.

  DannyB:

  So Onacruse I hope the opposite for you.

  Thanks...I agree

  Craig

  PS: hillary_step, I've never asked you this--Would you prefer that I not address you as HS?