|
|
Post by rational on Sept 29, 2010 19:58:31 GMT -5
I have to say that most of these childrens' parents ALSO trust the workers to be above reproach simply BECAUSE that's what is held before them to believe....thus "WHEN" an abuse happens NOT ONLY is the child a victim of betrayal and psychological hurt, the parents feel betrayed as well....but the adults tend to reason it away as a onetime "fluke" found within the workers UNTIL they hear of multiple victims of same said worker. Lin, you come off as you do NOT believe that CSA happens within the workership and also you come off as thinking IF it does, the worker(s) are NOT to be blamed....blame the parents, blame the children for it all! That is totally out of reason! "Child", for you and Rational both who think a child means a toddler not an adolescent ARE NOT taking into consideration, children born and raised in the fellowship are FAR MORE protected from the evils of mankind then you think so....they have NO idea how to purport themselves in any kind of adversity as they've watched their parents "just leave it up to God". Leaving things up to God is not what God gave us brains for but that is the way that the fellowship teaches people to react in all instances. The fellowship does NOT teach anyone how to face the evils of this world USING THE brains that God gave us. So thereby parents as well as their children are sitting ducks for manipulative offenders. The parents have no reason to believe that offenders abound within the workers "enough" to teach their children anything about offending abusers within the fellowship. I strongly think that parents have taught their children about such things coming to pass from people "in the world", but never can they begin to imagine that such evil is present within the workers who stand in the place of God before the members of the fellowship....as Ram said, what does that bring to mind?  ? Cult You have highlighted the problem. Focusing on the potential criminals rather than on the crime. If the education is about the crime and teaching that it is wrong, without qualification, then it doesn't matter who approaches the victim, it is the action that is wrong and not the person. You cannot shield a child from all sources of abuse., But you can teach them what is acceptable and what is not. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 29, 2010 20:09:11 GMT -5
Rat, I'm not sure where you've looked at professing families, but in no way are any of the children brought up in our area well equipped to "just know" that NOT ONLY are there abusers in the worldly arena but as much likely to be in the friends AND workers much more. It just isn't thought of, nor is it taught to children....they're brought up thinking that what the workers do and say is just okey-dokey, regardless. And because this is all too often the truth is why I have been pushing education, education, education. Experts cannot identify a sexual abuser before they strike so it is doubtful that a family can. But anyone can be taught to know what is unacceptable behavior. And it does not require attempting to identify who to trust and who not to trust. Just yell when the unacceptable behavior is noted, no matter the source. |
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Sept 29, 2010 20:57:37 GMT -5
Rat, I'm not sure where you've looked at professing families, but in no way are any of the children brought up in our area well equipped to "just know" that NOT ONLY are there abusers in the worldly arena but as much likely to be in the friends AND workers much more. It just isn't thought of, nor is it taught to children....they're brought up thinking that what the workers do and say is just okey-dokey, regardless. Are you saying all professing people are retards. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Sept 29, 2010 21:22:14 GMT -5
Are you saying all professing people are retards. Boy.... I sure don't think that. I doubt if more than 35% of them are in that category.....  Ha!! Scott 
|
|
|
|
Post by open mind on Sept 29, 2010 21:47:15 GMT -5
I have to say that most of these childrens' parents ALSO trust the workers to be above reproach simply BECAUSE that's what is held before them to believe....thus "WHEN" an abuse happens NOT ONLY is the child a victim of betrayal and psychological hurt, the parents feel betrayed as well....but the adults tend to reason it away as a onetime "fluke" found within the workers UNTIL they hear of multiple victims of same said worker. Lin, you come off as you do NOT believe that CSA happens within the workership and also you come off as thinking IF it does, the worker(s) are NOT to be blamed....blame the parents, blame the children for it all! That is totally out of reason! "Child", for you and Rational both who think a child means a toddler not an adolescent ARE NOT taking into consideration, children born and raised in the fellowship are FAR MORE protected from the evils of mankind then you think so....they have NO idea how to purport themselves in any kind of adversity as they've watched their parents "just leave it up to God". Leaving things up to God is not what God gave us brains for but that is the way that the fellowship teaches people to react in all instances. The fellowship does NOT teach anyone how to face the evils of this world USING THE brains that God gave us. So thereby parents as well as their children are sitting ducks for manipulative offenders. The parents have no reason to believe that offenders abound within the workers "enough" to teach their children anything about offending abusers within the fellowship. I strongly think that parents have taught their children about such things coming to pass from people "in the world", but never can they begin to imagine that such evil is present within the workers who stand in the place of God before the members of the fellowship....as Ram said, what does that bring to mind? ? Cult While it is true that in a fully functional professing family the children are protected from outside influences, I have noted quite a range of this outside protection. Especially in the current times, there are few families that can 'make it' with just one income. A normal pattern is for the mother to drop out of her employment situation late in the pregnancy, then stay relatively unemployed until the youngest is out of the toddler stage, say three or four. Kids this age usually do well in a day-care environment where they can interact socially with many peers and mature extensively in the process. It also provides a 'bridge' into the world that they are destined to inhabit later in life but with limits and controls. I believe the scriptures are quite instructive on this issue, e.g., Samuel and even our Lord and Savior, Jesus, who at about twelve was able to converse intelligently with the rulers of the temple on historical and spiritual matters. To be able to do this, I cannot believe this was the first time he was more than an arm's reach of his mother! As a side note, I am amazed at how well our young families in our area raise their children. These kids are well behaved, respectful and happy. This does not happen automatically. The parents don't attempt to get through this alone. They read and share child rearing books, network extensively with others, trade toys and clothes. Some attend the public school system, some are home schooled -- it depends upon the family -- but even the ones who attend the public schools get extensive home schooling. This is all being effectively done by young professing parents undergoing the same pressures, troubles and temptations as anyone in the general population endures, or submits to, whatever the case. Obviously there is a spiritual communication occurring that is complemented by the social network of the friends. Looks like a win-win situation, to me! Is home schooling a common thing amongst friends in the US? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 29, 2010 22:20:08 GMT -5
Rat, I'm not sure where you've looked at professing families, but in no way are any of the children brought up in our area well equipped to "just know" that NOT ONLY are there abusers in the worldly arena but as much likely to be in the friends AND workers much more. It just isn't thought of, nor is it taught to children....they're brought up thinking that what the workers do and say is just okey-dokey, regardless. Are you saying all professing people are retards. Nope. I am saying that many parents are not well educated in the dangers of sexual abuse and do not teach their children. Since it concerns sex they are often opposed for an explicit course being taught in schools either. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2010 2:49:51 GMT -5
Why would a parent teach their child such a thing, indeed? When you consider this is the norm, almost without exception, then one word comes to mind - cult! This is not a 2x2 problem but a problem that comes with parents not being educated as to where the danger lurks and then the parents not teaching their children specifically what is OK and what is not OK. It is the problem that arises when the focus is on the trying to identify potential abusers rather than focusing on the crime itself and making certain that children will go screaming to adults in the area when the behavior is noticed. We are not talking about pedophiles but usually hebephiles or ephebophiles and their victims can certainly make the problems known if they have been taught, in no uncertain terms, what is problematic behavior, not based on the perpetrator but on the act. Don't let your limited vision blind you. Yes the workers have the same weaknesses as everyone else. In that they are no different. A major part of the problem is that this fact has been swept under the carpet by the promotion by parents and workers over the years about the holy status of the worker. They have been put on a pedastol which transcends the weaknesses of human nature and to the point that have acquired an inordinate level of trust. This is what needs to be dismantled as part of an education programme, but remember, education based solely upon instruction or theory is nothing more than a lame duck. It requires practices and measures to make it effective, especially in reducing opportunities for perpetrators. Education requires enforcement. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Sept 30, 2010 6:20:32 GMT -5
I have to say that most of these childrens' parents ALSO trust the workers to be above reproach simply BECAUSE that's what is held before them to believe....thus "WHEN" an abuse happens NOT ONLY is the child a victim of betrayal and psychological hurt, the parents feel betrayed as well....but the adults tend to reason it away as a onetime "fluke" found within the workers UNTIL they hear of multiple victims of same said worker. Lin, you come off as you do NOT believe that CSA happens within the workership and also you come off as thinking IF it does, the worker(s) are NOT to be blamed....blame the parents, blame the children for it all! That is totally out of reason! "Child", for you and Rational both who think a child means a toddler not an adolescent ARE NOT taking into consideration, children born and raised in the fellowship are FAR MORE protected from the evils of mankind then you think so....they have NO idea how to purport themselves in any kind of adversity as they've watched their parents "just leave it up to God". Leaving things up to God is not what God gave us brains for but that is the way that the fellowship teaches people to react in all instances. The fellowship does NOT teach anyone how to face the evils of this world USING THE brains that God gave us. So thereby parents as well as their children are sitting ducks for manipulative offenders. The parents have no reason to believe that offenders abound within the workers "enough" to teach their children anything about offending abusers within the fellowship. I strongly think that parents have taught their children about such things coming to pass from people "in the world", but never can they begin to imagine that such evil is present within the workers who stand in the place of God before the members of the fellowship....as Ram said, what does that bring to mind? ? Cult You have highlighted the problem. Focusing on the potential criminals rather than on the crime. If the education is about the crime and teaching that it is wrong, without qualification, then it doesn't matter who approaches the victim, it is the action that is wrong and not the person. You cannot shield a child from all sources of abuse., But you can teach them what is acceptable and what is not. Sad to say, but it is true that people within the fellowship teach that people outside the fellowship are NOT to be trusted and when children are told about no-no behaviours it is always qualified that THAT kind of thing has never and never will be a problem among the w&f's....that's just the crippling indoctrination that has spilled into the fellowship. I agree that certain behaviours regardless where they occur are not to be tolerated, but then the f&w's always qualify that the f&w's are excepted simply to being the only true way and that the workers are in the place of God! Of course, NOT all people look at it that way, but that's the way a majority of people look at it. There is a negative thing that happens in the "exclusive" teaching and that is those of that memebership are always excepted to other people in the world. I am sorry to say! |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Sept 30, 2010 6:27:01 GMT -5
Rat, I'm not sure where you've looked at professing families, but in no way are any of the children brought up in our area well equipped to "just know" that NOT ONLY are there abusers in the worldly arena but as much likely to be in the friends AND workers much more. It just isn't thought of, nor is it taught to children....they're brought up thinking that what the workers do and say is just okey-dokey, regardless. Are you saying all professing people are retards. Lin, I'll have to credit you for "knowing" more about the failibilities of the workers after you have been one....but the general run of friends don't have your experience to tell them all that.....they see the workers on their best behaviour 9.99 times out of 10! I remember when I was well into my teens and had gone for a whole month of conv. preps...wow! Did my eyes get opened up to what the workers really are! It was kind of a traumatic learning at that, for I'd never seen the workers be anything but above reproach up to that time and I was around workers a lot growing up. But during that preps I saw some pretty nasty things within some of the workers' staff. And yet, that didn't prepare me for the shock that comes with finding out the sexual proclivities and sexual consensual acts going on either and here it is 40 some years later,. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Sept 30, 2010 6:30:06 GMT -5
While it is true that in a fully functional professing family the children are protected from outside influences, I have noted quite a range of this outside protection. Especially in the current times, there are few families that can 'make it' with just one income. A normal pattern is for the mother to drop out of her employment situation late in the pregnancy, then stay relatively unemployed until the youngest is out of the toddler stage, say three or four. Kids this age usually do well in a day-care environment where they can interact socially with many peers and mature extensively in the process. It also provides a 'bridge' into the world that they are destined to inhabit later in life but with limits and controls. I believe the scriptures are quite instructive on this issue, e.g., Samuel and even our Lord and Savior, Jesus, who at about twelve was able to converse intelligently with the rulers of the temple on historical and spiritual matters. To be able to do this, I cannot believe this was the first time he was more than an arm's reach of his mother! As a side note, I am amazed at how well our young families in our area raise their children. These kids are well behaved, respectful and happy. This does not happen automatically. The parents don't attempt to get through this alone. They read and share child rearing books, network extensively with others, trade toys and clothes. Some attend the public school system, some are home schooled -- it depends upon the family -- but even the ones who attend the public schools get extensive home schooling. This is all being effectively done by young professing parents undergoing the same pressures, troubles and temptations as anyone in the general population endures, or submits to, whatever the case. Obviously there is a spiritual communication occurring that is complemented by the social network of the friends. Looks like a win-win situation, to me! Is home schooling a common thing amongst friends in the US? Home schooling is really a fad for the rich and privileged folks but the friends are signing on to appear selective as well plus that way Mom has a reason to stay to home, so to teach the children. It truly is a way to avoid the temptations of illegal drugs that are running rampant in secondary schools besides all the normal lusty things. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Sept 30, 2010 6:35:19 GMT -5
Are you saying all professing people are retards. Nope. I am saying that many parents are not well educated in the dangers of sexual abuse and do not teach their children. Since it concerns sex they are often opposed for an explicit course being taught in schools either. You're right, Rat.....the sexual education offered during my elementary school days was pretty explicit....along with warnings of what sexual cohabitations can cause outside of pregnancy. Too many parents in this area rose up against such explicit teaching proclaiming it was the parents' place. That may well be the real truth but many parents are just NOT doing it. It seems they're very uncomfortable discussing intimacy and all the other things that go along with sexual education......and more the pity, I say! In the long run, the children are not taught and are vulnerable to preying persons as well as it is a reason for the increase in teenage pregnancies. although, there is this side of it, when parents teach children that they can be careful about such things, the children rise up in arms and want to prove that their parents are old fuddy-buddys and don't know what they're talking about....but they WILL accept that from school personnel because they've learned they have to accept what school personnel teach in other arenas. |
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Sept 30, 2010 6:43:52 GMT -5
Sharon: Your ability to exaggerate and distort is incredible.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Sept 30, 2010 7:07:49 GMT -5
Sharon: Your ability to exaggerate and distort is incredible. Lin, your talent for disagreeing is beyond remarkible! I think if someone told you the sky is blue, you'd disagree...... |
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Sept 30, 2010 7:08:23 GMT -5
Is home schooling a common thing amongst friends in the US? I don't know what the percentages would be, but I would be surprised if it were much more than 10 percent of the families formally homeschooling their children. One family in our area sent one daughter to the public schools and home schooled the other. Another family sold their home, bought a large motorhome and toured the country for a year, homeschooling their two Jr. High age kids for the duration. Upon returning, they sold the motorhome and bought another brick 'n sticks home. A third family is presently in the home schooling mode on a trial basis for this year because their kids thought it would be "cool". There are also teachers, by profession, in the area who are quite vocal in their disagreement with the practice. What I have observed is the kids that get the best education come from families that put a priority on obtaining the best education for their kids. This usually involves a full commitment to the public school curriculum as well as parental involvement structuring the home life to enhance the process. Hence, a combination of public schooling and home schooling! |
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Sept 30, 2010 7:11:02 GMT -5
Sharon: Your ability to exaggerate and distort is incredible. Lin, your talent for disagreeing is beyond remarkible! I think if someone told you the sky is blue, you'd disagree...... Not if it was true! |
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Sept 30, 2010 7:15:02 GMT -5
Sharon: Your ability to exaggerate and distort is incredible. Lin, your talent for disagreeing is beyond remarkible! I think if someone told you the sky is blue, you'd disagree...... I think Lin's right. The sky isn't blue. It's black. Dawn hasn't broken yet. At least one recognizes the other's "ability" -- and the other recognizes the other's "talent". :>) :>) |
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Sept 30, 2010 7:29:21 GMT -5
The point is, Professing people's children are not behind in any way. We all know of children of professing people that have been very successful in their working life. Some of them work in government places,school teachers,doctors, lawyers, nurses etc. If there is a need that takes money,no problem. The earthquake in Haiti.It's amazing the help that has gone there and is still going. This doesn't come about because people are out of touch.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 30, 2010 8:07:22 GMT -5
Don't let your limited vision blind you. My vision is not limited to the fact that it is a matter of education. Yet later on in this paragraph you state that their office has corrupted them. And in this the parents have to be educated. If not, the workers will always have a 'special' status and their shortcomings will be dismissed. I disagree. You only need to present the facts and show the damage. True, there are some who will not change and they will be in danger. But education is also for the future as well as the present. Again, identifying the perpetrators is the issue. It could be anyone. The only thing it will do is produce children who live in fear of all people. Reinforcement, perhaps. You cannot force education. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 30, 2010 8:08:58 GMT -5
The point is, Professing people's children are not behind in any way. We all know of children of professing people that have been very successful in their working life. Some of them work in government places,school teachers,doctors, lawyers, nurses etc. If there is a need that takes money,no problem. The earthquake in Haiti.It's amazing the help that has gone there and is still going. This doesn't come about because people are out of touch. The few families that I know of that homeschool are also into alternative medicines, non-vaccination, anti doctors/hospitals, and only use organically produced goods. The results are clear : their children have been, and are receiving a substandard education. Their social skills are poor, academic achievement very low, almost to the point of illiteracy in one case. My professional opinion is that it takes very special parents to skill their children to a competitive high school level. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2010 8:37:44 GMT -5
Don't let your limited vision blind you. My vision is not limited to the fact that it is a matter of education. Yet later on in this paragraph you state that their office has corrupted them. You talk nonsense to elevate your own limited viewpoint. You know full well by now that my position is that everyone has weaknesses of some form or another. This includes workers. Their lifestyle in my opinion brings about stresses and pressures along with ideal opportunities for perpetration to occur. inherrent weakness + opportunity brings on temptation then perpetration.And in this the parents have to be educated. If not, the workers will always have a 'special' status and their shortcomings will be dismissed. Agreed. That is one major part of the problem.I disagree. You only need to present the facts and show the damage. True, there are some who will not change and they will be in danger. But education is also for the future as well as the present. Education needs the element of enforcement to make it effective. That's why it's against the law to not have your child educated.
Giving children homework without the enforcement of time schedules and standards leaves us with weak or tardy education.Again, identifying the perpetrators is the issue. It could be anyone. The only thing it will do is produce children who live in fear of all people. Again this is usually impossible until something happens. Education supported by enforcement controls and measures is the most effective way to reduce opportunities for criminals. Preventing a crime is more important than identifying an abuser after they have committed a crime.Reinforcement, perhaps. You cannot force education.
The theory side of education is insufficient in itself. Ask Ministrysafe or any other such group. Theory and instruction must be backed up with proper controls and measures to make it work. One of the ways of making education for CSA and other abuses work IS by reducing opportunities. Reducing opportunities by instituting proper measures and controls is one form of enforcement.
Part of educating parents and children is that if someone touches a child the wrong way such as CSA, you then report the matter to ......what's the word? ? "Enforce the law. The law educates you also that CSA is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 30, 2010 16:01:31 GMT -5
You talk nonsense to elevate your own limited viewpoint. You know full well by now that my position is that everyone has weaknesses of some form or another. Of course - you have made your opinion quite clear. This is your opinion. I have tried to get you to qualify something to support your contention but so far nothing has been forthcoming. I attempted to look at the numbers as best I could and you rejected them without any data to support your claim. There is nothing to support your claim, at least that has been provided yet, that being in the work creates an abnormally high number of sexual criminals. And, on the whole, how would you say that enforcement is working out? People do not learn because they are ordered to or are forced in some other way. This is BS. Having taught for a number of years and never demanded homework from the students I know there are teaching methods that do not require the students to be forced or scheduled. You need to provide your students with a reason for learning. You do not need to force them. It is like trying to force a child to eat. That is why anorexia is such a powerful weapon in the hands of children. And that is why it is useless to target individuals/groups/etc. to avoid as a protection method. You do not know who the criminal is until after the act. The defense is educating people to recognize the acts and to give them the power and permission to report without respect for the person committing it. Exactly. Try to identify the potential criminals and make them sleep in a different house buys you nothing. You appear to have little or no idea what education is. Forcing a child to attend school and take classes is not education. If iot were high school graduates would all know how to read and write. Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by "proper controls ans measures". Can you explain? No doubt that wrapping children in a rug and standing them in the corner will work. But since it is virtually impossible to know who the criminal is before the act, reducing the opportunities is really just moving the time and location (regarding no overnights for workers). And exactly what are you enforcing? The approach reminds me of the use of a bundling board or having passengers all remove their shoes before boarding. It gives the proper appearance. I don't know what word you are referring to but you report it to the authorities that deal with these things, not spiritual leaders. The law doesn't educate. It only states what is legal and what is not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2010 16:29:32 GMT -5
You talk nonsense to elevate your own limited viewpoint. You know full well by now that my position is that everyone has weaknesses of some form or another. Of course - you have made your opinion quite clear. This is your opinion. I have tried to get you to qualify something to support your contention but so far nothing has been forthcoming. I attempted to look at the numbers as best I could and you rejected them without any data to support your claim. There is nothing to support your claim, at least that has been provided yet, that being in the work creates an abnormally high number of sexual criminals. Where have I made the claim the work creates an abnormally high number of sexual criminals? The work creates opportunities which may well be exploited by those who are are weak and tempted.And, on the whole, how would you say that enforcement is working out? People do not learn because they are ordered to or are forced in some other way. Please look up your dictionary and report back what "yo enforce means!"This is BS. Having taught for a number of years and never demanded homework from the students I know there are teaching methods that do not require the students to be forced or scheduled. You need to provide your students with a reason for learning. You do not need to force them. It is like trying to force a child to eat. That is why anorexia is such a powerful weapon in the hands of children. Again you misunderstand the term "enforcement!" You have a hysterical reaction to the term. Please look it up!And that is why it is useless to target individuals/groups/etc. to avoid as a protection method. You do not know who the criminal is until after the act. The defense is educating people to recognize the acts and to give them the power and permission to report without respect for the person committing it. Exactly. Try to identify the potential criminals and make them sleep in a different house buys you nothing. If they have no opportunity to commit a crime then how can they commit a crime! Ever heard of the term "crime prevention?" Educating a 5 year old child how to resist a 50 year old powerful man sound a great idea to me.You appear to have no clue what enforcement is. The Govt. forces education upon you! If you don't send your kids to school or have them educated by other means to recognised standards you are breaking the law.You appear to have little or no idea what education is. Forcing a child to attend school and take classes is not education. If iot were high school graduates would all know how to read and write. Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by "proper controls ans measures". Can you explain? I tried but you swept it aside. You have no time for controlling opportunities, preferring instead to educate a child to watch out for her "uncle" touching her the wrong way whilst he's reading Little Red Riding Hood to her whilst she's in bed!No doubt that wrapping children in a rug and standing them in the corner will work. But since it is virtually impossible to know who the criminal is before the act, reducing the opportunities is really just moving the time and location (regarding no overnights for workers). And exactly what are you enforcing? The approach reminds me of the use of a bundling board or having passengers all remove their shoes before boarding. It gives the proper appearance. No person has committed a crime who did not have opportunity to do so. Why the obsession, nay hysteria in seeking to find out who a perp is after he has victimised someone, rather than enforce the wise old adage "Prevention is better than cure?"I don't know what word you are referring to but you report it to the authorities that deal with these things, not spiritual leaders. The law doesn't educate. It only states what is legal and what is not.[/quote] Are you really saying this? What is it about "Thou Shalt Not...." that you don't understand in an educational context. The laws of the land educate you on what is legal and what is not. |
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Sept 30, 2010 17:29:52 GMT -5
Sad to say, but it is true that people within the fellowship teach that people outside the fellowship are NOT to be trusted and when children are told about no-no behaviours it is always qualified that THAT kind of thing has never and never will be a problem among the w&f's.... This was not the case where I grew up. When I was a kid, one of my peers warned me about a worker who had exhibited a "no-no behavior". I was a little surprised, but I believed her and took precautions around the creepy worker. Please don't paint us all with the same broad brush. Just because you believed something while you were professing doesn't mean that we all believe the same thing. Personally, I'm offended by all the garbage you say I believe simply because I grew up going to meetings. I was born with my own brain, and taught how to use it. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 30, 2010 18:15:03 GMT -5
Where have I made the claim the work creates an abnormally high number of sexual criminals? The work creates opportunities which may well be exploited by those who are are weak and tempted. Since according to you every one has weaknesses and since, according to you, the work creates opportunities that may be exploited it stands to reason that the work would have more sexual criminals than an environment that does not create opportunities. enforce - 1.)To compel observance of or obedience to. What is your point? You can force a person to attend class but you cannot force them to learn. I don't think I am misunderstanding the term. It means to force obedience. You can enforce the rule that people stand when the flag is raised but you can not force them to be loyal to that same flag. That is because you are thinking that these are crimes of opportunity - a snatch and grab, if you will. They are not. You can easily teach a 5 year old to tell mommy and daddy if anyone touches their penis/vulva or asks them touch theirs. They can yell. As soon as the criminal knows that the child will talk they will be gone in a flash. [/color][/quote]Exactly. No workers allowed but there is the uncle. And the solution was to prevent opportunities. Her uncle, her father, her brother, etc. The person does not matter. It is the act that does. The problem is that to remove all opportunities if to destroy the fabric of the family. You admit that you cannot identify who will and who will not commit a sexual crime but you are solving the problem by removing all that might commit a crime from the environment. So that means removing everyone possible. Since it is not possible to remove everyone, there is still the probability there will be an incidence of CSA. The solution is to stop the criminal before the target becomes a victim. A child who shares all with their caregivers does not make a desired target. The laws of the land do not educate any more than a set of physics books. It is the study of this material that educates. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Sept 30, 2010 18:49:33 GMT -5
Sad to say, but it is true that people within the fellowship teach that people outside the fellowship are NOT to be trusted and when children are told about no-no behaviours it is always qualified that THAT kind of thing has never and never will be a problem among the w&f's.... This was not the case where I grew up. When I was a kid, one of my peers warned me about a worker who had exhibited a "no-no behavior". I was a little surprised, but I believed her and took precautions around the creepy worker. Please don't paint us all with the same broad brush. Just because you believed something while you were professing doesn't mean that we all believe the same thing. Personally, I'm offended by all the garbage you say I believe simply because I grew up going to meetings. I was born with my own brain, and taught how to use it. But you just testified that it was a "PEER" who taught you! Same thing happened to me...OUR PARENTS did NOT teach us the dangerous persons in the fellowship...mine didn't believe it was possible...and so it was for Jean's parents...she got the blame because workers aren't that evil. Come on, it is NO broad brush, it happens and it still happens. |
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Sept 30, 2010 19:33:19 GMT -5
This was not the case where I grew up. When I was a kid, one of my peers warned me about a worker who had exhibited a "no-no behavior". I was a little surprised, but I believed her and took precautions around the creepy worker. But you just testified that it was a "PEER" who taught you! Same thing happened to me...OUR PARENTS did NOT teach us the dangerous persons in the fellowship...mine didn't believe it was possible...and so it was for Jean's parents...she got the blame because workers aren't that evil. Come on, it is NO broad brush, it happens and it still happens. You misunderstood what I wrote. Let me clarify. My parents taught me that there can be dangerous people anywhere. They also taught me that workers were human, just like anybody else. My peer simply warned me about the existence of a specific creepy person in the work. When my peer warned me, I believed her. If I had been taught that workers were incapable of such behavior, I would have concluded that the girl was lying. There may be some friends (and workers) who believe that other workers are immune to the effects of human nature. My parents don't belong that category. Fortunately most of the human nature I've personally encountered in workers has been small and petty, rather than huge and life-altering. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 30, 2010 19:35:31 GMT -5
...OUR PARENTS did NOT teach us the dangerous persons in the fellowship...mine didn't believe it was possible...and so it was for Jean's parents...she got the blame because workers aren't that evil. Come on, it is NO broad brush, it happens and it still happens. Wait a minute Sharon. Your parents not providing you with sex education is not an issue with the F&W. It is an issue with people of their age. I doubt my Mom could say labia without blushing even now! And as far as Jean - that is not anything to base anything on. Her father observed the molestation and blamed his daughter. We are talking about a whole other type of crazy there. That was certainly a crime of opportunity. A child raised in a family where she said she never felt loved. And as she said it was not just one but a few men who took advantage of her. That was not a F&W issue but a dysfunctional family issue and a criminal who took advantage of the situation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2010 2:59:27 GMT -5
Where have I made the claim the work creates an abnormally high number of sexual criminals? The work creates opportunities which may well be exploited by those who are are weak and tempted. Since according to you every one has weaknesses and since, according to you, the work creates opportunities that may be exploited it stands to reason that the work would have more sexual criminals than an environment that does not create opportunities. That's better, without your hysterical interpretations. Do we know the extent of the perpetration and damage yet? A decade ago none of us would have believed even today's revelations. We have hardly begun. Also there are other factors such as (in my opinion) the average worker "is" in fact an integrous individual who is generally way above these matters. That's why I recognise other factors may be involved rather than just brushing them aside as just "criminals!"
I would appreciate it if you could provide proper data showing that my "opinions" based upon sound suspicions are wrong. Otherwise we just have your counter opinion.enforce - 1.)To compel observance of or obedience to. What is your point? You can force a person to attend class but you cannot force them to learn. I don't think I am misunderstanding the term. It means to force obedience. You can enforce the rule that people stand when the flag is raised but you can not force them to be loyal to that same flag. enforce = to give effect to, to put in force, to urge, to compel. Enforcing does not necessarily mean to use overt force to subject someone to set disciplines. Merely putting in place a set of acceptable practices and procedures enforces these disciples as people have to comply with them. There does not have to be an element of pressure.
Or would you prefer the term you seem to agree with:
Reinforce! = To strengthen with new force or support; to strengthen; to increase by addition.
Whatever one makes you happy. The point is still the same. Education simply by means of instruction alone is a lame duck. It requires enforcing or reinforcing. Even if it was okay on its own, it is obvious that by strengthening you make it more effective.That is because you are thinking that these are crimes of opportunity - a snatch and grab, if you will. They are not. You can easily teach a 5 year old to tell mommy and daddy if anyone touches their penis/vulva or asks them touch theirs. They can yell. As soon as the criminal knows that the child will talk they will be gone in a flash. All very hypothetical. Support this view with pertinent data or I will treat it with the naivity it deserves. Whilst there are certain categories of crimes and certain criminals often behave in a similar way, it is a gross mistake to pigeon hole the criminal to the point that you become blind to the vagaries of criminals, including in CSA matters. In your case above, it is better to reduce the opportunity for such occurring than take an unneccessary risk. Children screaming have resulted in children dying. Or are you going to argue that CSA culprits are not capable of such?You appear to have little or no idea what education is. Forcing a child to attend school and take classes is not education. If it were high school graduates would all know how to read and write. Children ARE indeed forced to take education. Only we recognise it as a necessary and wise part of life. It is not seen as an act of overt pressure, but for some families from the lower social classes it is. Try keeping your child from attending school or supplying them with education to Govt agreed standards and see what happens. I'm sure that the USA is like the UK they have Education acts or vstatutes which compel parents to have their children educated as well as compelling local authorities to provide education to acceptable standards.Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by "proper controls ans measures". Can you explain? I tried but you swept it aside. You have no time for controlling opportunities, preferring instead to educate a child to watch out for her "uncle" touching her the wrong way whilst he's reading Little Red Riding Hood to her whilst she's in bed! [/color][/quote ]Exactly. No workers allowed but there is the uncle. And the solution was to prevent opportunities. Her uncle, her father, her brother, etc. The person does not matter. It is the act that does. Two things. By "uncle" I was referring to someone like a family friend or a worker, not a blood relative. The work is a vocation or a profession and should act as and be prescribed for as such (imo). Workers are not blood relatives in most cases. We take what reasonable steps and precautions which we consider necessary to reduce opportunities. Restricting workers in these circumstances are reasonable measures in my opinion.[/color
The problem is that to remove all opportunities if to destroy the fabric of the family. You admit that you cannot identify who will and who will not commit a sexual crime but you are solving the problem by removing all that might commit a crime from the environment. So that means removing everyone possible. Since it is not possible to remove everyone, there is still the probability there will be an incidence of CSA. The solution is to stop the criminal before the target becomes a victim. A child who shares all with their caregivers does not make a desired target.
The first line of defence in crime prevention is to reduce the opportunities for the criminal. Making a child or other vulnerable person the first line of defence is sheer irresponsibility. Yes educate them appropriately, but don't throw them into situations which can reasonably be avoided to test how well they learned the "theory!"
Are you really saying this? What is it about "Thou Shalt Not...." that you don't understand in an educational context. The laws of the land educate you on what is legal and what is not.[/quote]The laws of the land do not educate any more than a set of physics books. It is the study of this material that educates.[/quote] But like the set of physics books they are powerful educational tools. Without them where is the study you talk about? These books provide an opportunity to study the subject material. Without that opportunity your ability to study physics or the law or whatever, is severely compromised.
If you did not have the opportunity to study, then your ability to study is severely compromised. Does this sound familiar? |
|
? Cult
Ha!!
