@great-trivalization:
If you are concerned, then do not post or give (even through private chat) any PII (personally identifyable info).
Just keep your anon username, and interact through it alone.
MeanMrMustard
JoinedPosts by MeanMrMustard
-
13
Is jehovahs-witness.com legitimately and reliably independent of WTB&TS and peripheral, aligned entities?
by great-trivialization ini am new to this forum and uncertain that this is legitimately and entirely independent of conniving jw controllers or the wtb&ts and its related entities.
markers like the use of jw.org in the forum description and the policies seem controlled/controlling vs other xjw forums.
this is not an accusation, it is an attempt to know enough to be comfortable with motives of the ownership and controllers of the forum.
-
-
-
21
What's with the attack (counsel) on husbands with no corresponding article for wives?
by Rattigan350 inwhat's with the attack (counsel) on husbands with no corresponding article for wives on the jan 2025 w that is being studied today?.
is there a point to that?.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
The elders will get their instruction when they review the Shephard the Flock book, as a group. The margins are wide, and they can be told what to cite and how to interpret all the "guidance". It won't show up in any official literature - only the hand written notes of each elders individual copy, given verbally.
-
21
What's with the attack (counsel) on husbands with no corresponding article for wives?
by Rattigan350 inwhat's with the attack (counsel) on husbands with no corresponding article for wives on the jan 2025 w that is being studied today?.
is there a point to that?.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@thom:
I'll do you one better: I never had a Twitter account.
-
21
What's with the attack (counsel) on husbands with no corresponding article for wives?
by Rattigan350 inwhat's with the attack (counsel) on husbands with no corresponding article for wives on the jan 2025 w that is being studied today?.
is there a point to that?.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Boy, am I ever glad I don't go to those damn meetings anymore!
-
12
"Johnny The Bethelite" - VINDICATED!
by Nathan Natas inyears ago rick fearon hosted on his six screens podcast a person identified as "johnny the bethelite" who talked about goings-on in watchtower headquarters.. johnny talked about the experiments with cart work.. johnny talked about pedophiles and child pornography in jw headquarters.. people claimed "johnny" was a fraud.
a fake.
cart work is everywhere.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
There isn't enough time in the world to get me to go back through all the JTB posts, interviews, and shows.
I guess the pro-JTB side was ready to play the long game... good forking lord.
-
12
"Johnny The Bethelite" - VINDICATED!
by Nathan Natas inyears ago rick fearon hosted on his six screens podcast a person identified as "johnny the bethelite" who talked about goings-on in watchtower headquarters.. johnny talked about the experiments with cart work.. johnny talked about pedophiles and child pornography in jw headquarters.. people claimed "johnny" was a fraud.
a fake.
cart work is everywhere.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
But not saying anything either, on this topic. (J the B).
Oh you mean right now - immediately. Yeah. It was years ago.
Those were good times. Everyone excited... Rick gathered a lot of traffic to the 6 screens. But ultimately, JTB a giant scam.
-
12
"Johnny The Bethelite" - VINDICATED!
by Nathan Natas inyears ago rick fearon hosted on his six screens podcast a person identified as "johnny the bethelite" who talked about goings-on in watchtower headquarters.. johnny talked about the experiments with cart work.. johnny talked about pedophiles and child pornography in jw headquarters.. people claimed "johnny" was a fraud.
a fake.
cart work is everywhere.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
The naysayers of old are silent.
That was me. Here I am. Not silent.
-
7
When God Hates something or certain things are we expected not to do it 100%?
by Longlivetherenegades inwhen god hates certain things does that mean you are not expected to do that particular thing or certain things 100% .
1. god hates divorce does that mean we are not expected to divorce at all?
(hint: jesus allow divorce) .
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Lol @DoC.
Does God really hate masterbating to images of Native American wooden statues placed on the porch outside of old western saloons? Asking for a friend.....
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Let's get into it. The key points:
* Mandated shunning is a hate crime, employed by high-control religious groups to maintain membership.
By what definition? Under what legal theory does this rise to the level of a "crime"? (more on this below)
* A new research study, led by the University of Roehampton, is seeking to quantify the psychological impact.
So? Are you really prepared to make the leap from a study showing negative psychological effects to taking physical action and locking someone up in a jail cell? What about other studies? Where would you draw the line, or is any perceived "negative effect" on the table as a basis for a new law?
* The research group is calling for case studies and survey responses to aid its investigation.
I'm sure there are a lot of case studies to find, all of which will (or should be) legally irrelevant.
The article cites a JW (Matthieu) example, and attempts to make the distinction that you have already made: People can shun, but "mandated" shunning should not be allowed. My reply isn't so different than the first post above.
The question is: Concerning this law (or series of laws), can you write them down? Don't just opine about negative effects and how hurt people are. Don't just cite examples of families making the choice to pull away, or even suicides. No - can you put the law into words? Write down the law on paper, knowing the words that you use will be interpreted by many different parties for their own needs, even twisted at times. And then can you spend some minimum amount of time thinking about those people and all of the unintended consequences your law would bring? Ask yourself, is there any way this could get out of hand and start to infringe on rights? Can you really see no other areas of life that you are inviting the government into?
This paragraph here in the article is really telling, and its where the rubber meets the road so-to-speak:
"The primary objective of the study is to evaluate whether mandated shunning and coercive control practices constitute a violation of human rights. The research aims to identify specific elements that would be classified as criminal offenses, including crimes against humanity. By extending the existing body of literature, this study will offer robust evidence to inform policies and legislation to tackle this form of abuse, protect those who leave high-control groups, and provide adequate support for victims."
By the way this is worded, I don't think these psychologists understand what a "human right" really is. They operate from very fuzzy "feel good" definitions of "rights" and "crime" and "hate" - the end result being a law (if they ever tried to actually verbalize it) that would cannibalize real human rights (like freedom of speech and association). It would make in-roads into those rights, and set a precedent for the government getting involved in areas you never thought possible.
Matthieu said:
"Freedom means the ability to change religion freely, say legal experts. But in reality, the moment I leave, I lose everything: my elderly parents, my siblings, my uncles, and every friend I have ever known. People I have helped, people I have been through struggles with, people I have trusted with my life—they will abandon me. The moment I walk away, my entire life will be erased."
I feel for Matthieu. However, any such law would cause way more harm than good. But also, Matthieu is INCORRECT here. Yes, family may leave you. Uncles, siblings, friends. They may all actually turn their back on you. And it - and here is the important part - MAY *FEEL* LIKE your entire life is erased. But in reality, just the opposite. If you *FEEL* like you have been "unjustly shunned", then thank your lucky stars that the people shunning you have outed themselves as the assholes they are before they could do any further damage to your life. Yes, I AM ALSO TALKING ABOUT FAMILY, parents, siblings, etc. You may love them, BUT THEY DON'T LOVE YOU. Oh, they may be "sad" that they are doing this "for your good", but THEY, YES THEM, INDIVIDUALLY, AS PERSONS, are making a choice.
That is what really hurtful here - to see your loved ones make a choice that so clearly demonstrates they don't love you - not nearly as much as you think. And in that hurt and anger, I get it - its natural to lash out at the religion. If it's the religion that needs fixing, then it means that maybe my family really do love me the way I think... they are just being prevented by the big nasty WT. Yeah, I get the allure of that narrative.
But its not true - they have agency in this. Don't seek legal perspectives that actually would cause the erosion of fundamental rights, real rights. If you use government force to make them continue associating with you, all you are doing is letting them screw up your life even more, using much more inventive and insidious methods.
The answer to the question in the title is still, emphatically, "No!"
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Let's go to Psycology Today for legal advice....
Alright .. let's read it.