Orphan crow. I also suspect that if you ask on here if Watchtower is a high control organization, you would get a resounding yes. But that is not an automatic when you ask the general public. I am sure you would get some but it would not be automatic thing to say yes. Even if you presented whatever you want to present the interviewee. That is where I find the difference between objective and subjective because some may agree with the statement and some would disagree.
Richard Oliver
JoinedPosts by Richard Oliver
-
130
Not a sympathizer
by Richard Oliver ini think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.
i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.
i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.
-
-
-
130
Not a sympathizer
by Richard Oliver ini think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.
i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.
i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Finklestein. Again that is prospective. I know plenty of people who say you are not gay unless you practice an act of homosexuality and some say if u are attractive to people of the same sex than you are a homosexual. I came out as gay and everyone here is right, if I had sex with a man while going to meetings I would have not been in good standing. I left the second time when I started to fall in love with a man because I knew what the policy was. But while I was in people knew I was gay. I was in good standing, I had association with single brothers who knew I was gay, elders would invite me be around their family and hang out and never felt prejudiced against. I never claimed you could have sex with a man and be in good standing. All I have stated is I never felt that as a whole people thought that I had a mental condition or was homophobic.
Again other gay guys may have experienced the complete opposite that the moment they came out they were shunned. And I am not diminishing their experiences or hurt feelings. But it is not right to claim that as a whole people who are witnesses or Watchtower would do that.
-
130
Not a sympathizer
by Richard Oliver ini think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.
i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.
i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Orphan crow. I think that are definitions of objective is different, and that is partially my fault. You are using the common definition of someone who has no bias one way or the other. Like an objective observer who doesn't care which side is correct and which side is wrong. Here is one definition of it.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
I don't want to put words in your mouth but that is what it seems like it. But the following the definition of objective that I am using
objective is something that can be quantitatively described.
And I am using this definition for subjective
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Also when I studied aspects of medicine they use the two terms to indicate things that one feels or sees by their own observation. But objective evidence or data is what can be measured and can be indicated by data. Such as pain is subjective and weight is objective.
So when I said that there would be objective data of an abusive wife, I mean there would be evidence that no matter who observed it, they would come to the same or similar conclusion.
If two people look at a scale one person cannot say that the scale says 200 lbs and the other person says no it says 150. One person would be correct and one person would be wrong. But if one person says that 300 is heavy and the other says it is lite both can be correct based on their prospective.
-
130
Not a sympathizer
by Richard Oliver ini think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.
i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.
i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.
-
-
Richard Oliver
And I never denied that people here have had bad experiences. In fact I acknowledge that simple fact. But people should also not deny what other people have experienced good or bad, if it agrees with your views or not.
Again my point has been this: opinions no matter how much we want it to be true does not automatically make it a fact and it cannot be passed off as a fact. Look at the New York Times, the differentiate between a news article and a opinion editorial. Even though both pieces are very well researched and found proof for what is presented. But the news article should try to be neutral. But the OpEd will give the opinion of the writer and they will make it clearly abundant of how they feel. The actual proof in the article can be facts, but the opinion the writer express, that is not a piece of proof that is their own personal opinion and that opinion can be biased.
Recognizing the difference is where the key is.
-
130
Not a sympathizer
by Richard Oliver ini think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.
i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.
i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Orphan crow. For ur analogy to be apt you have to accept the theory that Watchtower is a high control organization. And again that is your opinion, and you have the right to that. And many people here may agree with you. Personally I do not and again that is my right to my opinion.
But in your analogy there would be some objective evidence of the abuse. Physical evidence of physical or sexual abuse. What I described was an exclusively subjective scenario.
-
130
Not a sympathizer
by Richard Oliver ini think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.
i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.
i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.
-
-
Richard Oliver
OK Outlaw. If you take two gay men, who never been witnesses at all in their life and in a scenario that is furthest thing away from witnesses. If you take two gay men put them in the same scenario and one says that he felt prejudice against and the other said he didn't. You would call one of them an idiot because of the way that he felt? Because you feel that they should feel wrong by the situation.
By the way you understand what an analogy is right? An analogy or a hypothetical situation does not have to be exactly what is being talked about just with similar parameters.
-
130
Not a sympathizer
by Richard Oliver ini think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.
i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.
i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Finkelstein. I said that i told people I was gay. Again that is my own personal experience. I am sure that people have experience with the opposite. But this is my own experience with Witnesses. I never felt a bit of prejudice by the people I told. I didn't tell everyone, but that was my choice. And beyond the people I told, at least as far as I know, no one else knew. I didn't have boyfriends at that time. But people didn't avoid hanging out with me alone, being around their families or other normal things. -
130
Not a sympathizer
by Richard Oliver ini think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.
i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.
i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.
-
-
Richard Oliver
oh sorry Outlaw. I don't want to put words in your mouth. So you would call one of those two men an idiot based on what you feel that they should have judged the situation to be for their own personal feelings.
-
130
Not a sympathizer
by Richard Oliver ini think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.
i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.
i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Outlaw. So you are saying you can take two African American men and put them into the same situation and if one says that he felt racially prejudiced against and the other feels that he did not experience racial prejudice. You are going to call one of them a liar and believe the other one?
-
130
Not a sympathizer
by Richard Oliver ini think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.
i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.
i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Like I said earlier
"I am not trying to get into a discussion or an argument about homosexuality and Witnesses."
and
"My point on this thread is that there are things that are opinion and everyone has the right to their opinion and can yell, scream and rail against Watchtower over how they feel or what is their opinion. But there are things that are just facts, and opinion cannot change facts, no matter how much they believe and feel that it is wrong or should be changed."
Again my point was not to get into a discussion about homosexuality and Witnesses. The only reason I brought up that I as gay was that there was a question of if I actually had a problem with a Watchtower teaching. My problem has never been that I felt that as a whole or as official policy that Witnesses or Watchtower was homophobic. Like I said before, my personal definition of homophobia maybe different or the same as other people but it is my personal definition as a gay man. My problem with Witnesses is that I cannot have a husband and be a Witness. I know that is their right to choose who they accept as a member and who they do not. Do I wish that they would change it? I really wish they would, but I know that I am not going to hold my breath for it.
The whole discussion was to show that there is a difference between facts and opinion. I have not seen a piece of proof that Watchtower calls gay people mentally ill in the last 15 years or so. Do I have proof that they call it abhorrent and a sin? There is plenty of proof of that. But they do not call it a mental condition anymore. Do I personally need a retraction of any previous statements, that if they did state that? I personally do not. May other gay people feel that they need that, that is certainly possible and that is up to them to make that decision.
I have not diminished anyones personal feelings here that Watchtower did not hurt anyone here. What I said was there are some things that are actual facts, some that are anecdotal evidence and some that are just opinion. Should everything carry the same weight when indicting a whole group of people? I do not feel that way. Many people here believe the opposite. But no one can deny that there are real and substantial differences between those three things. At least for myself I place more weight on actual verifiable facts and not so much weight on the other two, when i read it coming from other people.