Kinda reminds me of a ringer.
No! No! No! Don’t try to turn the table. It’s all about you and your accusations and being absolute. I have no one to impress.
However, I don’t know if you understand what disclosure means. Maybe you’re not bound by laws, I am. Although when Barbara Anderson sued the Watchtower she lost.
Did he tell you?
Maybe you should dig deeper in your research.
What you're saying, Jesus gave you that solid proof. Are you Joseph Smith?
Work on your own grammar mistakes before you criticize someone else.
César Chávez said:
Quite so. And since they are all truthful (except for Bowen), as opposed to JW leaders and their Writing Department, not believing them is not believing facts.
Do you have any factual, logical reasons not to believe these people? They set forth all manner of indisputable facts. What can you offer?
How do you know the allegations are false? Did God tell you?
No, that's just one piece of evidence. The most solid piece is that the GB saw fit to remove him from the GB and reassign him to duty in the UK. Or do you have information that is more believable than what the GB based their actions on?
Even if Jesus himself gave you that evidence, you most likely would not believe it.
Two completely different situations. JW apologists, especially on this forum, routinely defend the GB only with emotionally based arguments, not facts and logical reasoning.
As for proof, describe what sort of proof you would accept.
When you try to nitpick you'd better be sure your nitpicks are on the money. Yours are not. What I said was (note the 's' on the end of 'apologists'):
<< The self-righteous JW apologists on this forum are pitiful. >>
A lesson in English (I think this applies in Spanish, too): A word like "apologists" is plural. Plural words are normally accompanied by "are" not "is". Comprende?
Well then, it won't have any GB members in it, past or present, who demand virtual worship from JWs. Or the many JW apologists who lie through their teeth to defend Mommy Watchtower.
Back in 1994, in a conversation with GB member Albert Schroeder, I challenged him with a text from Luke that obviously condemned JW end-times teaching. He was blindsided. His defense? "That scripture can't apply to us, because we're Jehovah's people!"
Wow! Defending Watchtower teaching by denying that the Bible applies to JWs. That hypocrisy is endemic to the JW religion.
LOL! Coming from someone who NEVER contributes anything of value, that's rich!
He’s back. Arguing with every single point, as was his wont, even the ones inconsequential to the thread—like the retort to the unreasonably chatty greeting from JWI with mention of concern of his atheism.
This is the fellow that The Librarian told me privately, “Please stop arguing with Alan.” She knew what I was then finding out—that under no circumstances will he ever yield the final word. I did stop, and sure enough, he went away.
But he’s back.
Leading off with an insult to Trump, no less, though it has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and will likely fall flat to an apolitical audience, and those not apolitical will divide 50/50, so that he will unnecessarily antagonize some that he is trying to convince. Still he must get it in, and thus reveals—much as I hate to attribute wisdom to @James Thomas Rook Jr. that he has full-blown TDS and identifies with the leftists.
Oozing with contempt for anyone with whom he disagrees: “So are you claiming you don't worship the Governing Body? Don't let your fellows know, or you'll be disfellowshipped for apostasy,” he taunts.
Something like what you are doing?
What you are saying, witnesses should believe ex-witnesses. How does that make sense? Why should I believe anything an Ex-GB had to say in his book?
Then you have no proof. Why should anyone believe anything you have to contribute?
More hearsay. However, I know of your affiliation with AD1914 CARM. It doesn't impress me one bit.
I have. I also know many cases have been overturned. So how about giving some concrete evidence instead of dead talking points?
I believe you were directing your comment to AlanF in which case I responded to. I think you need to put on your spectacles sister if you think I was talking about you. Don't be so quick to judge when you have erred.
New International Frontiers in Child Sexual Abuse 2019
Theory, Problems and Progress
General Prevalence The reported prevalence of CSA continues to be disturbingly high. A recent meta-analysis found high levels of victimisation in most nations for both girls and boys; globally, 1 in 8 children (12.7%) had suffered CSA, with rates of 18% for girls and 7.6% for boys (Stoltenborgh et al. 2011). Even in the USA, where substantial efforts have been dedicated to prevention for several decades, and where there is some evidence to indicate a decline in recent years, the most recent national study found that 21.7% of all 14- to 17-year-olds reported experiencing some form of sexual victimisation in their childhood, and in the past year, 16.4% of girls and 9.4% of boys aged 14–17 reported such an experience (Finkelhor et al. 2015). These data included 12.9% of girls and 5.1% of boys aged 14–17 reporting they had experienced attempted or completed rape. A national study from 2006 in
the USA found 4.5% of participants reported experiencing contact CSA by a parent or adult caregiver, before sixth grade (Hussey et al. 2006).
Developing Nations In Yemen, where there are no laws setting an age for marriage or criminalising rape in marriage, families made desperate by war and hunger are selling their daughters as child brides. Child brides are exposed to daily rape and beating (Youssef 2017). The market in China for trafficked and enslaved child brides from other countries such as Myanmar is growing (Baker 2017). Despite recent progress, child marriage remains a massive problem, with an estimated 700 million women alive today being married as a child.
Western Nations In Western nations, this problem is exemplified by recent selected events in the USA, France, Australia, and the UK. In the USA, a substantial number of states have amended civil statutes of limitation to give survivors of child sexual abuse a more reasonable amount of time in which to commence civil legal proceedings for compensation for their injuries. However, many other states, including Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania, have resisted reform, influenced by powerful institutions – most notably the Catholic Church and Agudath Israel of America. Some have described the strategies used by the Catholic Church as “mafia-like” (Kirchgaessner 2016).
England In England, a number of scandals have been revealed regarding organized criminal gangs that have been operating with impunity for years on a mass scale, with a succession of revelations of entire towns being epicentres of CSA. In these cases, the criminal gangs have comprised exclusively or mostly men from British-Asian backgrounds, with this thought to have been one factor influencing authorities’ reluctance to intervene due to a fear of being perceived as racially motivated.
Definition of the Concept
In Chap. 2, I will cover in much more detail the complex problem of defining the term “child sexual abuse”. It is a contested concept, and different definitions have been used in research, policy, epidemiology and law. Child sexual abuse is generally understood at a minimum to include a range of acts covering penetrative abuse, masturbation, oral sex, fondling, and involvement in pornography, and other acts to sexually gratify the abuser in circumstances where the child cannot or does not give true consent. The World Health Organization (1999, 2006) states child sexual abuse occurs when the child is involved “in sexual activity that he or she does not fully comprehend, is unable to give informed consent to, or for which the child is not developmentally prepared and cannot give consent, or that violate the laws or social taboos of society”.