ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks 347 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • freddo

    I've said it before and I'll say it again ...

    Olive Oil/Fishy ain't wired right.

  • konceptual99

    To be fair to RO, I think he plays devils advocate very well. I may not agree with him all of the time but there is generally a logic and reason to what he says and I don't think he should be dismissed simply on the basis that he may or may not be a WT apologist.

    He is right that there are grey areas but it is for the authorities to determine how they sort this out. It is true that it is possible for a teenager at 15 to be convicted under sex offences laws for consensual acts with another 15 yo however this is where the prosecuting agencies come in. Here in the UK it is the DPP that determines if a prosecution is in the public interest and it would be rare for an individual 15 YO to be criminalised for sexual activity for another 15 yo. A 15 YO and a 10 YO might be viewed differently. I know a case of a 16 YO and a 12 YO where the 16 YO was reported by his parents for some activity with the younger child and cautioned by the police.

    In all of this, there are guidelines for organisations to help them do the best they can however it seems that the WTS tries to go it alone every time.

    I don't see why the WT cannot go down a path of reporting an allegation of activity and let the authorities take the burden of responsibility. If there was a clear, publicly available policy then everyone would know where they stand. If two young people knew that their sexual activity would result in them being reported to the authorities then so be it. Other organisations make that call.

    Let the secular authorities do their job and let the elders and WTS do their thing without having to worry about making calls outside of their responsibilities.

  • Fisherman

    In the US, in one jurisdiction for example, the way the law is written, child porn is child abuse, and the way the law is written, child means 17 years of age and under.

    OC question is very clear, she refers to a minor under the age of puberty, as I understood her question, and who could argue with her is what RO was pointing out. What is misleading about OC's argument is that she only narrows it down in her question but that is not the way laws are always written; wt has a legal duty to comply with mandatory reporting in whatever the law requires and when required wt must report child porn. That is all that matters. According to wt morality, having any immoral thoughts is wrong, let alone wachting any porn, and any person having pedophile feelings -who wants that person around, I would not; wt on the other hand has both a legal duty and a spiritual duty towards the person and everybody else in the wt community. It is a complicated issue for wt.

  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions

    Oh good.

    Our two in-house lawyers have arrived to clear things up for us.

  • OrphanCrow
    BoC: BoC: Oh good.
    Our two in-house lawyers have arrived to clear things up for us.

    Lol! Of course they have. I invited them. This is a good topic to show how misinformed and how bad their position is. They don't have a snowball's chance in hell to come out of this looking good.

    I want them to engage. Every time they engage, they show their ignorance.

    For example, RO doesn't get what a straw man argument is. He claims that because I presented a fact that cannot be refuted that it is a straw man argument and yet it is the farthest thing from a straw man that you can find.

    A straw man argument distorts, exaggerates and misrepresents. I didn't do that. I narrowed and defined - I presented the definition of child pornography clearly, definitively and narrow. I did not distort or exaggerate.

    The grey areas, the ones that are all foggy and blurry, the areas where distortion and exaggeration occur, are in the areas that RO feels so comfortable in trying to capture people inside. Trying to get an argument going in those grey areas are where straw man arguments thrive.

    The WT has presented child pornography in broad terms - just as one simple thing - "child pornography". That means that the child pornography that I described so narrowly does fit within that umbrella term. And, it does fit into what the WT claims is not child abuse.

    Stack on track, RO. Stay focused. You can do it. I haven't given up on you yet. Today is a new day and the clouds still have a chance of breaking.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    Orphan crow. Do you believe that child porn should be regulated as a matter of law or a matter of morality?

  • OrphanCrow

    Law is based on moral codes.

    Why are you making a distinction, Richard?

    Whose morals do you follow?

    But to answer your question simply, I think (I don't believe...I think) that child porn should be regulated as a matter of law. Relying on the moral code of people like the ones who wrote the WT policy, is a dangerous course to take when they don't even view child pornography as child abuse. (and I am using the narrow definition of that - not the grey "big" definition that you and the WT like to use to hide behind)

    *oh...and by the way...child pornography IS regulated as a matter of law so your question is moot

  • OrphanCrow

    Richard, you like to have documentation and all of that to pick apart and dissect. So, I will provide you with some material that will enlighten you to the reality of what "child pornography" actually is and how it is viewed by a global law enforcement agency - Interpol.

    Look around in this website. Take your time. There is lots to go through:

    You will note that Interpol uses the term "child abuse material" instead of "child pornography" (from the Online Q&A - click on link right of screen for downloading pdf):

    Child abuse material (CAM) is the term used to refer to the photos or videos taken by an offender, documenting the sexual abuse of a child.
    The media often use the term ‘child pornography’. This is not appropriate when describing images of sexual abuse of children. A sexual image of a child is ‘abuse’ or ‘exploitation’ and should never be described as ‘pornography’.
    Pornography is a term used for adults engaging in consensual sexual acts distributed (mostly) legally to the general public for their sexual pleasure. Child abuse images are not. They involve children who cannot and would not consent and who are victims of a crime.

    According to Interpol, child pornography is "child sex abuse material". Someone should tell the WT that.


    Oh good.

    Our two in-house lawyers have arrived to clear things up for us.....BOC

    According To Our Alternative Facts..


    Image result for tweedle dee and tweedle dum.Image result for confused judge judy

  • konceptual99
    According to Interpol, child pornography is "child sex abuse material". Someone should tell the WT that.

    Quite. With subjects as complex as this why the hell would they not want to engage with experts, get a suitable policy that reflects common and contemporary best practice and make it public? Why the hell would you not want the authorities involved to take the responsibility away?

    As organisations go the WTS should be in a good position. They have few activities where a parent or multiple adults are not present and to manage any risks they do have should be pretty straight-forward. They obviously have a pastoral side which means elders may come to know about an allegation but why they have to entangle the secular and religious I don't understand. It really shouldn't be this complex.

Share this