kicking perverts off of the convention grounds

[Deleted]

Apr 16, 2015 4:21:21 GMT -5 curlywurlysammagee said:

I think that nit picking should not have a hyphen between the two words.

Ah yes, but on here it is a special kind of nit picking, with emphasis.

[curlywurlysammagee]

Nit picking should only be allowed between consenting adults.

[Roselyn T]

Apr 16, 2015 3:37:28 GMT -5 bert said:

Ah... found it
As I see it, it's like this:
1 - I don't like to hear of ANY minister (in any church) engaging in CSA.
2 - I don't like the sexualization of our society.

Which of these two are YOU happy with?

Ok so that is the question you want me to answer, then you will answer my question ? To start with I don't know what either statement you have made has to do with the title of the thread also I think if you look back you asked this before I commented. What has the sexualisation of our society got to do with workers abusing children in the 70's and it being covered up ? Are you saying that because of sexualisation of society its ok for people to abuse children within the F&W group ? How can you compare that with children being abused ?

[Roselyn T]

Bert
Royal Member
*****



Bert Avatar


Posts: 2,894




Apr 8, 2015 at 6:01pm

Quote like


































Post Options

.
Post by Bert on Apr 8, 2015 at 6:01pm





dmmichgood Avatar

Apr 8, 2015 at 11:18am dmmichgood said:




Bert Avatar

Apr 5, 2015 at 10:19pm Bert said:
If you have a "problem" with a "pervert" on the convention groundthen just stay home and turn on the ol' TV - some good shows


Bert, if you are trying to uphold the "TRUTH" the F&W's, you are doing them more harm than good by taking this kind of attitude.



No, if YOU have a problem with the unbridled sexuality of Convention
then stay away. Plenty on TV to occupy your prurient mind. If WE have
a problem we need to handle it.

As I see it, it's like this:
1 - I don't like to hear of ANY minister (in any church) engaging in CSA.
2 - I don't like the sexualization of our society.

Which of these two are YOU happy with?

[Roselyn T]

I believe you made this statement to DMG, Bert !

[Deleted]

So here's the situation, nay, the facts.
If I was in ANY church and witnessed CSA then I would:
1 - ask the church hierarchy to take this to the law
2 - if not then ask the parents to go to the law
3 - if not then go to the law myself.

As for the issue of the sexualization of our society
1 - I don't support it
2 - you either most likely support it
3 - or, won't stand against it.

AND, as I mentioned here last year, child porn will
become a common form of entertainment in years to
come - just as pornography has come over the past
twenty years.

[rational]

Apr 16, 2015 0:58:44 GMT -5 Roselyn T said:

Rational, pack-up day is the day after the last day of Convention, as I said before at Conventions like Booyong in Australia where the men's side is a long way from the rest of the convention there is the perfect opportunity for this to happen, the cases that I am aware of happened in the 70's by the worker that has recently been re-baptised, this was reported to the Overseer at the time but nothing was done. Some parents leave their children with grandparents to help on pack-up day the same as with preps. The reason I bought this up was in reply to Bert's comment that children are not abused at convention !

Thanks for the explanation. So the statement:

You obviously are not aware of the amount of children that have been abused at convention on pack-up day !!

is referring to a single offender.  Was it at a single convention ground?  Was this a yearly happening?

Were the grandparents involved? Were they aware or did they not watch the children carefully?

It would seem that this event had been discussed and it has come to be seen as standard operating procedure at conventions when it may well have been a single incident.  Just guessing.

The Guardian published a article about Moral Panic and Child abuse concerning cases of chold sexual abuse within the BBC.
There were interesting parallels.

[rational]

Apr 16, 2015 4:32:40 GMT -5 curlywurlysammagee said:

Nit picking should only be allowed between consenting adults.

It should also require the presence of nits.

[Jesse_Lackman]

Apr 16, 2015 7:02:26 GMT -5 bert said:

So here's the situation, nay, the facts.
If I was in ANY church and witnessed CSA then I would:
1 - ask the church hierarchy to take this to the law
2 - if not then ask the parents to go to the law
3 - if not then go to the law myself.

As for the issue of the sexualization of our society
1 - I don't support it
2 - you either most likely support it
3 - or, won't stand against it.

AND, as I mentioned here last year, child porn will
become a common form of entertainment in years to
come - just as pornography has come over the past
twenty years.

Doesn't matter Bert, as sure as the hairs in your nose and ears Roselyn T will keep you nailed to her cross. Surely you understand crucifing and condeming others is the only way to solve the problem.

[Deleted]

A child was abused on the Juneau Alaska convention grounds in 2008. There is a newspaper link on wings.
wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/convicted-csa-offenders/darren-jacksch/

[withlove]

Apr 16, 2015 7:02:26 GMT -5 bert said:

So here's the situation, nay, the facts.
If I was in ANY church and witnessed CSA then I would:
1 - ask the church hierarchy to take this to the law
2 - if not then ask the parents to go to the law
3 - if not then go to the law myself.

As for the issue of the sexualization of our society
1 - I don't support it
2 - you either most likely support it
3 - or, won't stand against it.

AND, as I mentioned here last year, child porn will
become a common form of entertainment in years to
come - just as pornography has come over the past
twenty years.

Thank you for listing the steps you'd take. That encourages us all to consider the steps we'd take. I would go 3, 2, 1, although if the parents or church hierarchy were in the next room I might say quickly what happened as I picked up the phone to dial 911. Basically, I would report it to the police, then inform parents, then the church hierarchy. Can't say this was always the case...I have made the mistake of talking with parents, then church, then letting the issue go after being advised by the church to do so (not in CSA case, but in something scary involving a child). I can't forgive myself for that. But I do understand your sequence of steps because I have followed them myself.

The sexualization thing is over my head a bit. Are you addressing all exes or someone specifically? 

[Deleted]

wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/convicted-csa-offenders/darren-jacksch/
@@@
Why was this man at the Juneau AK convention grounds anyway??

[Deleted]

A retired Coast Guard veteran was sentenced to 20 years in prison Tuesday after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting a 12-year-old boy at a Juneau church camp last spring and then paying $300 to keep the child from reporting the crime.

Ketchikan resident Darren Jacksch, 42, also was convicted for sexually abusing a 10-year-old child in his home in 2004, while still in the Coast Guard.

Court records show Jacksch was employed at the Ketchikan Charter School at the time of his December 2007 arrest.

Juneau Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg suspended 12 years of Jacksch’s sentence and ordered the 42-year-old to serve eight years in prison beginning Tuesday night. A paperwork mix-up delayed Jacksch’s entrance into prison; instead he spent the night with his family at the Driftwood Inn. Jacksch entered Lemon Creek Correctional Center on Wednesday.
@@@
Shame on the school system. coast guard as well as the fellowship!!!

[Deleted]

Looks like a good professing man.

[Deleted]

Apr 16, 2015 12:00:47 GMT -5 @laverdad said:

A retired Coast Guard veteran was sentenced to 20 years in prison Tuesday after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting a 12-year-old boy at a Juneau church camp last spring and then paying $300 to keep the child from reporting the crime.

Ketchikan resident Darren Jacksch, 42, also was convicted for sexually abusing a 10-year-old child in his home in 2004, while still in the Coast Guard.

Court records show Jacksch was employed at the Ketchikan Charter School at the time of his December 2007 arrest.

Juneau Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg suspended 12 years of Jacksch’s sentence and ordered the 42-year-old to serve eight years in prison beginning Tuesday night. A paperwork mix-up delayed Jacksch’s entrance into prison; instead he spent the night with his family at the Driftwood Inn. Jacksch entered Lemon Creek Correctional Center on Wednesday.
@@@
Shame on the school system. coast guard as well as the fellowship!!!

Well he made an unwise judgement and was caught, tried, sentenced and is serving his time- paying the penalty. Let's hope that others, including any reading here, will have learnt a valuable lesson from such action, and will exercise self control and refrain from any such actions from henceforth. I suppose it was posted here for information and as a warning to others who may be so inclined.

[Roselyn T]

Apr 16, 2015 7:02:26 GMT -5 bert said:

So here's the situation, nay, the facts.
If I was in ANY church and witnessed CSA then I would:
1 - ask the church hierarchy to take this to the law
2 - if not then ask the parents to go to the law
3 - if not then go to the law myself.

As for the issue of the sexualization of our society
1 - I don't support it
2 - you either most likely support it
3 - or, won't stand against it.

AND, as I mentioned here last year, child porn will
become a common form of entertainment in years to
come - just as pornography has come over the past
twenty years.

Again Bert I do not see what CSA in the Fellowship or how YOU respond to it has got to do with sexualisation of our society.

CSA has been happening for how many years Bert ? Take Mr Harvey as an example, he was abusing children in the 70's, what was societies view on sexuality in the 70's ?

While people still have the view that you do, nothing will change, if a child is being abused we report it to the Authorities.

People followed your facts in the 70's and look at the outcome of that !

You don't seem to get it that CSA is a criminal offence not just a sin !
How can you compare child porn to pornography ? And what has it got to do with CSA in the Fellowship ?

[Deleted]

WithLove Quote - "The sexualization thing is over my head a bit.
Are you addressing all exes or someone specifically?"

Do you
watch TV?
read statistics?
Read celebrity magazines?
See how young girls dress?
Read a newspaper or watch the news?

Then you should be aware of sexualization.
It's something which turns everyone into
perverts, or the desire to attract perverts.

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2015 3:38:28 GMT -5 Mary said:

Bert, are you saying these guys who sexually abuse children in your fellowship watch TV, movies, and all the things you accuse others of doing? What turned them into perverts?

Well that seems to be the implication, taken logically; it also seems to suggest that man has not learnt anything from Adam and Eve's experiences, we should not touch the forbidden fruit no matter how attractive and enticing it looks.

[Deleted]

TV doesn't really make you a "pervert",
it changes what "pervert" means. The
general population will never be "perverts"
in their own eyes, but they don't mind the
daily diet of bras, knickers, jock straps,
boobs and bottoms which appear on any show
which promises to be "adult" with "strong
violence" and "sexual references" and "nudity"
(Australian TV, at any rate.)
So popular culture shifts the bell curve
of acceptable behavior - including kiddie porn.
One UK prosecutor called child porn the "new norm"
with a ten percent compound growth per year.

[Mary]

Seems as if your fellowship including some workers have shifted the bell curve - does this mean they were watching too much TV?

[Deleted]

Who knows Mary, who knows.
Each of us is responsible for our
own actions. And blaming a Worker
for your own behavior won't cut it.

[Gene]

Apr 16, 2015 2:54:17 GMT -5 bert said:

Apr 15, 2015 20:18:41 GMT -5 Roselyn T said:

How typical Bert ! When a question is too hard don't answer it .... sounds like some workers I know !!

From Wikipedia on loaded questions:

Madeleine Albright (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.) claims to have answered a loaded question (and later regretted not challenging it instead) on 60 Minutes on 12 May 1996. Lesley Stahl asked, regarding the effects of UN sanctions against Iraq, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Madeleine Albright: "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it."[6] She later wrote of this response:

I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. … As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy, and wrong. … I had fallen into a trap and said something that I simply did not mean. That is no one’s fault but my own.[7]

President Bill Clinton, the moderator in a town meeting discussing the topic "Race In America", in response to a participant argument that the issue was not affirmative action but "racial preferences" asked the participant a loaded question: "Do you favor the United States Army abolishing the affirmative-action program that produced Colin Powell? Yes or no?" [8]

For another example, the New Zealand corporal punishment referendum, 2009 asked: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Murray Edridge, of Barnardos New Zealand, criticized the question as "loaded and ambiguous" and claimed "the question presupposes that smacking is a part of good parental correction".[9]

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.

Bert, the Madeline Albright example of a loaded question does not support your case for not answering Rosalyn's question to you. In the MA example and the others you provide, an arguable premise is built into the question, as you aptly pointed out.

Look at Rosalyn's question again:

"If you knew a child was being abused by a worker at convention would you report it to the authorities ?"

The word "If" and the connected "would you" make this a valid question about an admittedly hypothetical situation. To correctly use the "loaded question" defense, the question would have to have been posed something like this: "WHEN you see a child being abused by a worker at convention, DO you report it to the authorities?"

Here's another prime example of a loaded question (50 points if you can guess who posed it):

"(Are you happy with) the sexualization of society?"

Knowledge check time:
1. Describe what makes that question a loaded question.
2. Re-write the question in such a way as to eliminate the "loaded" aspect(s).

[rational]

Apr 17, 2015 4:15:52 GMT -5 @partaker said:

Well that seems to be the implication, taken logically; it also seems to suggest that man has not learnt anything from Adam and Eve's experiences, we should not touch the forbidden fruit no matter how attractive and enticing it looks.

Wasn't the forbidden fruit the knowledge of good and evil?

This was immediately translated into nudity being wrong and spawned a clothing industry. Would mankind be better off not having the knowledge of good and evil?

[rational]

Apr 17, 2015 4:20:11 GMT -5 bert said:

TV doesn't really make you a "pervert",
it changes what "pervert" means. The
general population will never be "perverts"
in their own eyes, but they don't mind the
daily diet of bras, knickers, jock straps,
boobs and bottoms which appear on any show
which promises to be "adult" with "strong
violence" and "sexual references" and "nudity"
(Australian TV, at any rate.)
So popular culture shifts the bell curve
of acceptable behavior - including kiddie porn.
One UK prosecutor called child porn the "new norm"
with a ten percent compound growth per year.

Perhaps some of this is just on the rebound from being repressed too long.

You also seem to imply that pornography results in increased sexual crimes.
Given the explosion of pornography on the internet and it's easy accessibility the sexual crime rate should be on a sharp increase. The data shows it is moving in the other direction. Doesn't this raise the possibility that it was in fact sexual repression that was driving the sexual crime wave?

there is, of course, the underlying definition of what is and what is not pornography.

While sexualization is an issue, from your comments I wonder if some of your concern is the fact that people are, at times, being portrayed more honestly as sexual human beings.

[Deleted]

TVs would have taught people in closed information restricted groups and societies about the evils of CSA also.

[rational]

Apr 17, 2015 8:28:54 GMT -5 @laverdad said:

TVs would have taught people in closed information restricted groups and societies about the evils of CSA also.

Like it did for the RCC and BSA?

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2015 7:56:57 GMT -5 rational said:

Apr 17, 2015 4:15:52 GMT -5 @partaker said:

Well that seems to be the implication, taken logically; it also seems to suggest that man has not learnt anything from Adam and Eve's experiences, we should not touch the forbidden fruit no matter how attractive and enticing it looks.

Wasn't the forbidden fruit the knowledge of good and evil?

This was immediately translated into nudity being wrong and spawned a clothing industry. Would mankind be better off not having the knowledge of good and evil?

I suppose that would depend on what is meant by "better off."

[rational]

Apr 17, 2015 12:36:03 GMT -5 @partaker said:

Apr 17, 2015 7:56:57 GMT -5 rational said:

Wasn't the forbidden fruit the knowledge of good and evil?

This was immediately translated into nudity being wrong and spawned a clothing industry. Would mankind be better off not having the knowledge of good and evil?

I suppose that would depend on what is meant by "better off."

You are correct. If people do not have the knowledge of what is good and what is evil then there is no restriction on their behavior.

This also raises the question of how Adam and/or Eve knew that disobeying god was bad/evil. Up until that point that did not have the ability/tools to know. So why were they punished? Why put the tree there in the first place? Why not build a fence? Make the fruit unpickable. Seems like god should have accepted some of the responsibilities.

Wouldn't the attractive nuisance doctrine come onto play?