Originally posted by snowinscotland
Lose all her family and friends? Trivial to you perhaps, but overwhelming for others, especially when in such a situation.

Your harping is tiresome. No, I don't consider it "overwhelming" and neither would someone of ordinary backbone. And disfellowship doesn't include members of the immediate family living with you or non-JW's. JWs don't live in communes and have non-JW friends (believe it or not).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your harping is tiresome. No, I don't consider it "overwhelming" and neither would someone of ordinary backbone. And disfellowship doesn't include members of the immediate family living with you or non-JW's. JWs don't live in communes and have non-JW friends (believe it or not).

You seem pretty heartless.

I mean I understand you have an entrenched position and can't see too far over the battlements, but you must surely have some family somewhere?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't see any "overwhelming" influence here so your use of the word remains incorrect.

Oh, I see. If you could handle the pressure, or shrug off the threats, then that must be true for every other sane individual.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
You seem pretty heartless.

I mean I understand you have an entrenched position and can't see too far over the battlements, but you must surely have some family somewhere?

What makes you think that every JW's entire extended family is all JWs? What makes you think that all JWs obey a "shun" decision?

Surely both you and SG know you are grossly overstating to the point of hysteria the effects of a disfellowship. But you keep pretending otherwise purely for propaganda purposes.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Oh, I see. If you could handle the pressure, or shrug off the threats, then that must be true for every other sane individual.

You are ridiculous. What "threats" are you referring to; the "threat" that someone will strongly disapprove of an action taken by an individual and not want to associate with them because they did it? That's a "threat" everybody faces about a million times in a lifetime.

Originally posted by no1marauder
...grossly overstating to the point of hysteria....

are you even aware of the meaning of the word hyperbole?


You really seem hard; I hope you treat your family better than you would treat others.

One measure of any society is how it treats it's weakest members, No?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
are you even aware of the meaning of the word hyperbole?


You really seem hard; I hope you treat your family better than you would treat others.

One measure of any society is how it treats it's weakest members, No?

Only someone presenting an indefensible position stoops to trying to personalize an issue. As you can't mind your own business regarding what grownup JWs do, you also seem to want me to share some personal info that is NOYFB. Please at least try to stay on-topic.
I will say that I treat grownups as grownups who don't need some self-anointed elitist to make their decisions for them as you seem to want to do. Maybe you think the model of proper behavior should be Gladys Kravitz, but most people don't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Only someone presenting an indefensible position stoops to trying to personalize an issue. As you can't mind your own business regarding what grownup JWs do, you also seem to want me to share some personal info that is NOYFB. Please at least try to stay on-topic.
I will say that I treat grownups as grownups who don't need some self-anointed elitist to m ...[text shortened]... Maybe you think the model of proper behavior should be Gladys Kravitz, but most people don't.

This has nothing to do with personalising an issue. You continually evade the point: that is that individuals have a responsibility to those around them, morally not least of all. However your response makes it perfectly clear where you are coming from. Perhaps in a few years, eh?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
This has nothing to do with personalising an issue. You continually evade the point: that is that individuals have a responsibility to those around them, morally not least of all. However your response makes it perfectly clear where you are coming from. Perhaps in a few years, eh?

Yes perhaps in a few years we'll all do whatever YOU think is moral.

Rather ironically, the JW's rationale for disfellowship is based on the community's responsibility to insure that the individual in question doesn't stray from the proper moral path. So you and the JWs are in agreement.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes perhaps in a few years we'll all do whatever YOU think is moral.

Rather ironically, the JW's rationale for disfellowship is based on the community's responsibility to insure that the individual in question doesn't stray from the proper moral path. So you and the JWs are in agreement.

So the country you live in has no law?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are ridiculous. What "threats" are you referring to; the "threat" that someone will strongly disapprove of an action taken by an individual and not want to associate with them because they did it? That's a "threat" everybody faces about a million times in a lifetime.

It's not just someone, but an entire family, or large part of the family, all at once. That has been stated over and over in this thread, but you continually ignore it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Surely both you and SG know you are grossly overstating to the point of hysteria the effects of a disfellowship. But you keep pretending otherwise purely for propaganda purposes.

Your mind reading powers match mine, young Skywalker.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
So the country you live in has no law?

What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Under the law people are accountable.

Within a (say) club, people have rules and can chuck out those who disobey them, however is there is hurt (eg someone breaks a leg on club premises) there is accountability.

Until recently, people felt afraid to speak up about hurt brought upon them by the church, ie they were injured, and the church hushed it up.

There will be an enquiry here within the hospital; and I hope that someone has the decency to open the question wider as to why someone would ask for second rate treatment. Was there coercion? It is clear that others have felt put upon to say that they did not want the treatment felt most appropriate by those professionals.

and I hope you are not amoung those who have to make a decision on that issue.

Now don't get me wrong here, I support people's right to do what they will; up to the point where others get hurt by those actions. You even have the right to be grumpy or stupid or hide behind weasly words; but start to injure your child and the law will come into effect. Why?

You ask why? I think our discourse is over if you really are at that level.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Under the law people are accountable.

Within a (say) club, people have rules and can chuck out those who disobey them, however is there is hurt (eg someone breaks a leg on club premises) there is accountability.

Until recently, people felt afraid to speak up about hurt brought upon them by the church, ie they were injured, and the church hushed to effect. Why?

You ask why? I think our discourse is over if you really are at that level.

Your paternalistic and condescending attitude is nauseating but typical among Euros. No law in the US would allow someone (who BTW) to seek redress for hurt feelings because they felt "put upon" by someone else's religious belief (except perhaps in the case of Westboro Church; see that thread). The question as to why this someone would ask for what you and even medical doctors might feel is "second rate treatment" is answered in this case and freedom of religion is protected here and I thought in the UK as well.

"Start to injure your child" is a nice slippery slope when you are talking about non-physical "injuries". It is an invitation for people like you to stick their nose into everybody's else most intimate decisions on child rearing and see if YOU approve of them. Sadly, this type of micromanaging other people's lives is regularly attempted here, though often thwarted at appellate court levels (but that usually requires money and other resources). But "experts" like you are always willing to use the coercive power of government to make others do what YOU think is right.

EDIT: Here's a case that'll warm your heart from my hometown: http://ablechild.org/newsarchive/ritalin_case_puts_parents%20courts%20on%20collision%208-17-00.htm