Send a Message
to Tears of Oberon

Comments

2,011

Joined

Jan 20, 2009

Tears of Oberon Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Jehovah's Witness

Fading, Faking and Lying: a Moral Criticism of Pretend JW's

I don't know if I should be embarrassed by Jace's trolling or be thankful for it. By keeping this thread bumped with all his posting, Jace has actually given me a pretty nice stream of traffic at my blog. As for the original topic of this thread (we seem to have gotten a bit side tracked): I've been thinking about it some overnight, and figured that perhaps I could sum up the same point more concisely. My post is not arguing for the validity of any particular set of beliefs. It was intended to be neutral in tone and universal in principle, regardless of what a person believes. The main lesson of it all being: regardless of what you choose to believe, have conviction in those believes, and do not be afraid to publicly defend them. The man who has no conviction in his beliefs is a wet noodle, a sail boat without a captain being blown this way and that in whatever direction the wind happens to take it. The man who has conviction in his beliefs but refuses to defend or acknowledge them publicly, especially if he avoids speaking because he merely seeks to avoid negative opinions of himself, is a moral coward. The man who has conviction in his beliefs but refuses to acknowledge them publicly and simultaneously pretends to hold completely contradictory beliefs merely to appease others, is not only a moral coward but also the worst kind of hypocrite. Keeping silent is one thing, but lying and pretending to be something that you inwardly believe is evil, is a whole other level of moral repugnance. It is the third person in particular that my post takes aim at. Not the ex-Witness who has walked away or publicly denounced his former religion (I at least have some degree of respect for them, even if I consider them to be factually wrong), but the ex-Witness in heart only, who no longer believes and yet keeps up his facade solely for the sake of appeasing those around him.  (Jun 12, 2015 | post #44)

Jehovah's Witness

Fading, Faking and Lying: a Moral Criticism of Pretend JW's

I have to keep comments moderated on a controversial blog like that, or they would devolve into immature insults pretty quickly. If you go ahead and just submit the comment, then I get a notification and will approve it. Thanks for the compliments too! I'll try to keep adding material that is interesting.  (Jun 9, 2015 | post #8)

Jehovah's Witness

Fading, Faking and Lying: a Moral Criticism of Pretend JW's

You've obviously never had a blog before. Other forums and websites will steal entire posts without thinking twice. A friendly reminder on the blog itself can help. I had one bad experience of an ex-JW forum copy/pasting an old version of one of my posts, in full, in their forum thread. They gave no links to my blog and I'm not even sure that they mentioned my name. I asked them nicely to credit the source and use up-to-date material, but they gave the middle finger and said "screw you." Sent a message to the website admins and did a DMCA Complaint, and the infringing post disappeared pretty quick. The life of a blogger is cruel and unfair...  (Jun 8, 2015 | post #4)

Jehovah's Witness

Fading, Faking and Lying: a Moral Criticism of Pretend JW's

Hi again! I've been on a pretty extended hiatus from writing and blog posts, but it seems about time to jump back into the thick of things. I actually have a new post prepared called: Fading, Faking and Lying as an Unbelieving Jehovah¬ís Witness: A Moral Criticism Location: http://jwresearchb log.blogspot.com/2 015/06/fading-faki ng-and-lying-as-un believing.html Please discuss if you wish. Agree or disagree and why. I will also be systematically revising and updating old posts for the next few weeks, since my writing style has changed a lot over 6 years. Feel free to stay tuned if you are interested.  (Jun 8, 2015 | post #1)

Jehovah's Witness

After all these years...IT'S HAPPENING! The end of the Co...

Actually that number is an unsubstantiated myth that includes many things other than convicted, Witness child abusers  (Nov 23, 2014 | post #70)

Jehovah's Witness

After all these years...IT'S HAPPENING! The end of the Co...

Forgive me for being a bit rusty on the subject of Parental Rights. My terminology might not be perfectly accurate either. But I think I can at least explain the general concepts that you seem to have misunderstood. Simply not having the child by your side does not legally constitute a transfer of guardianship. Simply having a child present in the area does not automatically throw a duty of care upon the shoulders of every adult who just happens to be around. When you leave a child in school for 8 hours, you are temporarily, voluntarily and openly transferring guardianship rights and responsibilities to the school faculty, and a duty of care follows. When you leave a child in daycare, you are temporarily, voluntarily and openly transferring guardianship rights and responsibilities to the daycare staff, and a duty of care follows. But in all of your examples, the parents have not transferred their rights or responsibilities to anyone. The parents are still have full legal guardianship of their children. Just walking away for a couple of minutes and coming back, does not change this. Watchtower publications have repeatedly said that parents should be in full control of their children at all times in the Kingdom Hall and during field service. At no time does the Congregation as a legal entity take that away from them.  (Nov 23, 2014 | post #67)

Jehovah's Witness

Anthony Morris pimps out the sisters

Again the logic is nonsense because it can also be fully applied to PaulThe Witnesses didn't originate the titles, and they didn't originate the qualifications. Paul did. So if you want to whine about titles and responsibilities and perks, then take it out on Paul.  (Nov 23, 2014 | post #44)

Jehovah's Witness

After all these years...IT'S HAPPENING! The end of the Co...

I already answered your question immediately after in post #26: http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T B4K323R3G4ITP1FQ/p 2#c26 Watchtower has many arguments and points. They are too numerous to list here. You can read the court documents for yourself if you want to know what they are appealing. I gave direct links.  (Nov 23, 2014 | post #53)

Jehovah's Witness

Child Abuse Settlements-Members Informed?

"They were both about abuse." No they weren't. They were about liability and failure to act on a alleged duty of care. "They were about covering up abuse." No they weren't. "If you think that just because they were against the same entity that if one is thrown out that all will be, you will be sadly mistaken." Many of these cases take place in the same State (California), and they all involved EXACTLY the same types of claims and reuse many of the EXACT same arguments. If the Appellate Court strikes down the Conti ruling, then it can provide "persuasive precedent" for other appeals, or simply discourage new claims from being filed at all if said claims rely on arguments that the Appellate Court struck down. I am sorry if you don't understand this. "The article YOU read says that the WT was barred-after they refused to cooperate with discovery. You can't have a fair trial without discovery being honest and they didn't even PLAY at doing their due diligence in this trial." Watchtower provided all documents relevant to the immediate case, they provided expert Witnesses who could orally answer all questions related the motion for discovery, they repeatedly pointed out why Losch's testimony was not in any way relevant to the case at hand, and they filed writs in accordance with what the Judge told them to do, and yet were sanctioned for it anyways. "The demands of the court were shown IN court to not be unreasonable. " No, you are mistaken. Plaintiff produced a software expert who gave an opinion despite knowing nothing whatsoever of Watchtower's record or filing system, a large part of which was composed of non-text recognizable photo-copies that couldn't be searched anyways, of headings that might or might not be related to the specific type of abuse that Plaintiff sought which would mean manually sorting through all documents to verify that they are relevant, not to mention the redactions of names of third parties that have nothing to do with the Lopez case at all. "but can't find the name of the accused in their files?" All documents related to the accused were stored in the respective congregations and were produced. But we aren't talking about that. Plaintiff didn't just want documents related to Lopez. Plaintiff wanted EVERY document from EVERY congregation related to EVERY allegation of abuse in the United States going back 40+ years. Watchtower estimated that to comply with such an order it would take their entire service department staff, working 8 hour days, 6-8 months to complete at a cost of $500,000 in equivalent wages. And this doesn't even address how such a demand is relevant to the specific facts of the specific allegations of abuse by Lopez. I would call that very unreasonable, and I can understand why they fought it. But again, I am not well read on all the fine details of the case, so all of this is still just my personal surmises. Take it as you will.  (Nov 23, 2014 | post #26)

Jehovah's Witness

Child Abuse Settlements-Members Informed?

I am pretty sure that is exactly what happened. The judge apparently sanctioned Watchtower, and then proceeded to conduct 6 days worth of trial with ONLY the Plaintiff present. And after 6 days worth of one-sided testimony, the Judge declared that it was "good enough" and award damaged. It is certainly unusual, to say the least. I've never actually heard of such a thing happening before, so I don't know how the Relief from Default or Appeals process will work.  (Nov 23, 2014 | post #24)

Jehovah's Witness

Jehovah's Witnesses Banned as 'Extremist' in Russian Region

I JW family I know took their child to a doctor's appointment just last week. I think that maybe you are just a liar?  (Nov 23, 2014 | post #92)

Jehovah's Witness

After all these years...IT'S HAPPENING! The end of the Co...

That is your choice. I offered to answer your question if only you would tell us what is actually is, and you refused. I am not going to waste my time pursuing it any farther.  (Nov 23, 2014 | post #51)

Jehovah's Witness

After all these years...IT'S HAPPENING! The end of the Co...

Can you rephrase the specific question that you want answered? There are a lot of posts and a lot of points being made, and I am not sure what you are referring to.  (Nov 23, 2014 | post #46)

Jehovah's Witness

Child Abuse Settlements-Members Informed?

Neither case was about abuse. If the cases were about abuse, then they would have been criminal cases, not civil. These cases are only about duty of care and liability. "Conti case didn't set the precedent for the judgement." I didn't say that it caused the judgment. But what I do say is that once you set the ball rolling with one terrible ruling and reward bad legal arguments from a Plaintiff, then you are only going to encourage more and more Plaintiffs to push the same bad legal arguments because "Oh look! It worked for the Plaintiff in this case, that means we have a strong chance too." Which is why I've also said that it will be important for the Appellate Court to reverse the Conti ruling and put a chilling effect on continued use of these bad arguments. "The WT refused to participate in the court proceedings are are not going back to claim that they were RIGHT, they are going back to say "boo-hoo, they didn't even listen to our side!" The articles I've read say that Watchtower was BARRED from defending themselves, which is pretty damn serious if true. You also have to consider whether the "demands " of the court were reasonable in the first place. If they weren't, then Watchtower would have been justified in fighting them, and that gives them more ammo in their appeal. What makes me wonder about these things is that none of these claims of "refusing to defend themselves" came up in the Conti case or in any other case for that matter. It makes me think that the circumstances are strange, such as strange or unreasonable demands that other courts haven't made in the past, that Watchtower in this one instance felt the need to fight. But then again, I haven't read all the transcripts and documents surrounding this new case. These are only my surmises. Take them as you will.  (Nov 23, 2014 | post #19)

Jehovah's Witness

After all these years...IT'S HAPPENING! The end of the Co...

When we have all of the court transcripts and evidence available to us, just as the jury did, then the opinion of the 12 on the jury carries no more truth value than the opinion of anyone else. Because at the end of the day, that is all a trial jury is: 12 ordinary people giving an opinion. The posters on this site can do that too. I can do that too. I have in fact done that. I've looked at the facts and evidence and circumstances of the case, and I've formed my own judgment, completely independently of the trial jury or judge. I am not interested in the outcome of the appeal for truth value, because I've already formed my own judgment, and nothing anyone else says will change that unless they present some significant new evidence. I am only interested in the outcome of the case for issues of legal precedent, nothing more. And that is my two cents on that.  (Nov 23, 2014 | post #44)

Q & A with Tears of Oberon

Hometown:

The lost city of Shangri La

Blog / Website / Homepage:

www.tearsofoberon.blogspot.com