Not a sympathizer
Okay. I give up. We will use your definition of what terms mean. I can do that - it just means learning a slightly different language and making adjustments for inaccuracies. Not a problem. I have been an educator in a past life and I have had to do it before - I can do it again.
So. Let's tackle this.
Richard, what is your opinion about this checklist? How do you feel that the org measures up when you compare it to these characteristics of a high control group? What is your subjective analysis of each point? Do you feel that the org is different or the same as each point?
(bolding is mine in the following)
This checklist of characteristics helps to define such groups. Comparing the descriptions on this checklist to aspects of the group with which you or a family member or loved one is involved may help determine if this involvement is cause for concern. If you check any of these items as characteristic of the group, and particularly if you check most of them, you might want to consider reexamining the group and its relationship to you. Keep in mind that this checklist is meant to stimulate thought. It is not a scientific method of "diagnosing" a group.
We suggest that you check all characteristics that apply to your or your loved one's group, then print this browser page for future reference. You may find that your assessment changes over time, with further reading and research.
Again orphan crow. I never contended that some people cannot say that Watchtower is a high control organization. I just said it is not a verifiable fact. And all it would lead to is an argument. That is not my intention to lead to an argument. You just feel that if you say that they are one then every reasonable person should view it too. Unless it is a generally accepted fact by either the general public or by experts in the field then it is just an opinion. You want no one to disagree with you but you feel that you can disagree with anyone you want to. Again I never said that you don't feel that they are. It is clear that you feel that way. But it is not a generally accepted fact.
I know all that, Richard. I am aware that you have said all of that.
The exercise I proposed involves you and your feelings.
This is your thread. State your feeling/opinion on each of the points listed.
Tell us exactly why you feel you are not a sympathizer of the org.
Honestly i am not going to describe my feelings on this in this forum because all it would do is start an argument. I am not intending to start an argument and a debate on Watchtower as being a high control organization.
is it just me....
Every time I see this thread title, I recall Herr Gropenfuhrer whining in his debate with Hillary, "Not a puppet...not a puppet....not a puppet..."
Honestly i am not going to describe my feelings on this in this forum...
So why did you start a thread that claims you are not a sympathizer/apologist if you are not willing to back up your claim?
Seriously? You think you can just waltz on here and make a statement and expect us to accept it?
I love this forum. Too much fun. :) better than comedy central sometimes
The point of my posting this thread and many people have recognized it. It was to highlight that as a society we need to focus on things that are verifiably true and things that masquerade as fact even though they are opinion or feelings. Again I have stated this before, I never intended to bring up me being gay until someone questioned if I truly had a problem with Watchtower teaching. And this portion about a high control organization started because you used an analogy of two people in an abusive relationship. I didn't accept your claim that it is a high control organization and it just spun into this place.
Please don't try and say that people commit suicide for the exclusive reason that they are either gay or a witness.
Not trying to imply that at all and I think you know that.
The causative result of these ones was directly related to having had their own mothers and fathers shun them, this can be very psychologically detrimental to young teenagers or adolescents.
These suicides were not based upon speculative opinions they are facts , information that was given by the family members of who had committed suicide.
Richard you are and have been presenting a straw man argument continuously on this thread.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's actual proposition.
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
The point of my posting this thread and many people have recognized it.....RO
"Blowing Smoke Up Your Ass" Used to be Literal..
Back in the late 1700s, however, doctors literally blew smoke up people's rectums. Believe it or not, it was a general mainstream medical procedure used to, among many other things, resuscitate people who were otherwise presumed dead. In fact, it was such a commonly used resuscitation method for drowning victims.
"KEEP BLOWING RICHARD!!"
Outlaw how about you stop being a bastard and name calling people and be a freaking adult. Buy group. You won't hear from me again. And I am sure plenty of people will be ecstatic by that and good for them. I don't care anymore. Do whatever the hell you want and want to believe.