What argument that i have stated here is a Strawman argument please provide me with a specific example.
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks 347 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Vidiot
Lipstick pigs, straw men, red herrings...
...what's next???
-
Richard Oliver
And again it is great that you cannot argue with the facts but just with what you think about me. Please argue the fact that Watchtower did state that child pornography is child abuse when it provided the definition of child abuse. See you can't argue that statement. You want to attack me as a person because those are the facts.
-
Fisherman
What do you mean by strawman argument? And How is RO using a strawman argument?
-
OrphanCrow
You are babbling now, Richard.
I do not plan on letting the lipstick rule the pig on this issue.
The WT states that viewing child pornography (child sex abuse material) is not considered child abuse. I refuse to look at any of the legalese surrounding that until the statement changes to - "viewing child pornography IS child abuse".
There are a couple reasons why I am stuck on this point and they are important reasons.
First. This effects all children in the world, not just JW children. The WT institutional policy on this point has an impact on all children everywhere. Worldwide. Viewing child sex abuse images is part and parcel of child sex abuse. The WT must acknowledge this and they must change the wording of that sentence before it causes any more damage to vulnerable children everywhere. Attitudes have to change and those attitudes are shaped by institutions like the WT.
Second. This point is really important to active elders. Really important. Listen carefully.
If a body of elders is made aware that a congregant is viewing child sex abuse material, and they follow the WT's direction on forming a judicial committee, etc, without contacting the proper authorities to report the possible viewing of child sex abuse material, then it will be up to the elders to determine if the images that were being viewed actually are child sex abuse material.
If you are responsible for determining if a congregant has looked at images of child sex abuse, how can you do that without looking at the images yourself? And do you know what happens the moment you look at those images, and they do, indeed, prove to be images of child sex abuse? You, JW elder, you will have broken the law BIG time.
If you follow the directives in the WT Branch Manual, it will turn out that the WT has asked you to break the law. And it is a pretty ugly law to break. Tell me, if you are an elder, do you want to be put in the position of determining if the images on JW Joe's computer are images of child sex abuse? Do you want to look at that? Or would you rather let the police determine that, with people trained to deal with the trauma of looking at images of children getting raped?
If all you active JW elders are okay with the WT telling you that you have to sit on a judicial committee, and gather all the evidence for a hearing into whether a person has looked a child sex abuse material, then all of you, every one of you that will do that, are child sex abusers. You are laypersons. You do not have the legal authority to examine child sex abuse images. If you do, you are guilty of viewing child sex abuse material. Interpol wants you.
Yes. It is just one tiny little phrase. A person would miss it if they didn't read carefully enough. A tiny little phrase that puts all JW elders into the position of having to break the law.
-
LoveUniHateExams
Going back to ARC Case Study 54 ...
Richard Oliver and Fisherman - how well do you think Spinks and O'Brien did before the Commission?
-
OUTLAW
OUTLAW -- I'm sorry, but I also have to take issue with the fact that you cited Wikipedia's "Straw Man" argument page.
You should have cited Wikipedia's entry for "Fucktard.".....BOCLOL!!@BOC!!..
Unfortunately Richard won`t accept Wikipedia`s definition..
He`ll find some way to make the word exceptionally desirable and really cool..
So we`ll go with a Respected Dictionary definition..
You know it`s bad..Oxford Living Dictionary:
Fucktard
Noun
A contemptible or stupid person.
When The Dali Lama.
IS LAUGHING AT YOU..
-
Richard Oliver
Ok, Orphan Crow, I read through your whole last statement. And I agree with you that child pornography does affect children both inside and outside of a congregation. And in fact an abuser of child pornography theoretically could go much longer without detection just by the nature that they don't have a victim that either knows them or is aware that the specific person even exists. And yes if a elder does investigate a matter of child pornography and they view the image they would be breaking the law.
I also understand your point that there is that specific statement that says that they don't view child pornography as child abuse and it is your right to be furious with the implication that it has. And certainly it is not a huge thing to ask for them to change that one phrase.
I have acknowledged all of that and agree with you on all of that. And I understand that you may not see it as carrying the same weight or any weight, but do you acknowledge that the BOE Dated August 1, 2016, that it does state that child pornography is child abuse.
-
Richard Oliver
I think that the two witnesses at times did very well and at times did poorly. I think that they presented what has been done since the previous hearing. I did notice that as Mr. Stewart or a member of the commission made a specific suggestion for the policy that they made notes in order to either consider it or if it was a reasonable suggestion to ensure that the suggestion would be put into effect. An example, it may have been small but Mr. Stewart suggested that the policy should read "a child" and not just child, because it could be construed to mean that it was only that specific child and not any child in general. You saw one of them make the note and he indicated that he was going to make that change to make sure it was clear that it was not just if the specific child was still in danger but a child was still in danger. They explained well why it seemed like there were more procedure papers that were submitted to the Commission, that it was to show what has been adjusted and what has stayed the same in policies. I think that they did poorly on when it was asked about shunning, I think that they should have been more straight forward in stating why Witnesses believe in shunning. And at the end about Pastoral arrangements, it was a little dodgy but it also seems like they have hired an outside law firm to give objective advice to them and to handle the claims as objectively as possible. I certainly don't think that it was all positive but I don't think it was a train wreck either.
-
LoveUniHateExams
Both Justice McClellan and Mr Stewart asked the two witnesses "why do you shun disassociated people?"
They failed to answer this reasonable question. What do you think about that?
