Originally posted by Proper KnobI thought that would be perfectly obvious, they will be defined by their behaviour, not some word in a lexicon. see the superiority of my approach, how it helps one to think for oneself rather than feeding on the predefined opinions of others.
A criminal is defined by behaviour, and we can deem that behaviour criminal if a person breaks a law. If they beak a law they can be deemed a criminal.
Now you are saying we can deem what a cult is by the behaviour of it's members. But who gets to decide if that group of people is in fact a cult in the first place?
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Proven with reference to actual cult behavior"? OK. Many people look upon the JWs as a "cult", as you know all too well . So let's use the behaviour of JWs that leads to people referring to them as a "cult" and cobble together - with your "scientific method" if you want - a definition of "cult behavior".
I have done nothing of the sort, my definitions are clear and have, unlike our abandonment of the scientific method, have the added benefit of being proven with reference to actual cult behavior.
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe word "cult" is used to express a negative perception of a group and its behaviour. People call groups "cults" but those groups say they are not "cults". This is how the word is used. How the word is used is how we find its definition.
But who decides what behaviour constitutes a cult in the first place?
Originally posted by Proper Knobyou observe those that are deemed to be cults or have the designation cult applied to them and observe what behavior has resulted in this appellation being applied and whether its justified or not. Thus as I have demonstrated, the Branch
But who decides what behaviour constitutes a cult in the first place?
Dravidians, the Aum Shinrikyo and the Scientology movement had charismatic leaders who defined their respective ethos, thus it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that this is one of the defining criteria of a cult, is it not the case? I did not need a dictionary to help me, nor a thesaurus, nor vain appeals to popular opinion, simply the application of the scientific method. Why it should be so controversial, i cannot say, but there you are.
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Jehovah's Witness Organization has had "the designation cult applied to them" so why don't you "observe what behavior has resulted in this appellation being applied"?
you observe those that are deemed to be cults or have the designation cult applied to them and observe what behavior has resulted in this appellation being applied and whether its justified or not.
If you think the "appellation" is not justified, then I doubt you will use the word "cult" to describe the organisation. But people who feel the "appellation" is justified will most likely use the word "cult".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell then. Your organisation has been deemed a cult, i will observe what behaviour has resulted in this appellation being applied and whether it's justified or not.
you observe those that are deemed to be cults or have the designation cult applied to them and observe what behavior has resulted in this appellation being applied and whether its justified or not. Thus as I have demonstrated , both the Branch
Dravidians, the Aum Shinrikyo and the Scientology movement had charismatic leaders who defined their resp ...[text shortened]... reasonable to conclude that this is one of the defining criteria of a cult, is it not the case?
I have for example observed first hand the practice of shunning used by Scientology and it's affects it has on families. The JW organisation uses the very same technique, thus it seems perfectly reasonable that this is one of the defining criteria of a cult. How's that working for you? It's your logic. 🙂
I would like all hose who are proposing some kind of definition of the term from consulting a dictionary (snigger snigger) to note, that historically, cults were defined by their behavior,
In the 1930s cults became the object of sociological study in the context of the study of religious behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
I will accept all apologises and reference's to my 'stupidity', for doing the same.
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by Proper Knobso you would propose that exclusion from the main body was a defining criteria, how interesting, native Americans also practised excluding and banishment for misdemeanour's against the main body, are they also a cult, by your definition? hows that working for you? its your logic.
Well then. Your organisation has been deemed a cult, i will observe what behaviour has resulted in this appellation being applied and whether it's justified or not.
I have for example observed first hand the practice of shunning used by Scientology and it's affects it has on families. The JW organisation uses the very same technique, thus it seem ...[text shortened]... s is one of the defining criteria of a cult. How's that working for you? It's your logic. 🙂
02 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have been proposing a definition of the term "cult" based on "observing" the way it is used by people, what they mean when they use it, and what kind of group behaviour leads to them using it.
I would like all hose who are proposing some kind of definition of the term from consulting a dictionary (snigger snigger) ...
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think you're perhaps starting to get the idea that the word "cult" is subjective and judgmental.
native Americans also practised excluding and banishment for misdemeanour's against the main body, are they also a cult, by your definition? hows that working for you? its your logic.
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't care what the native Americans did. I was just putting your logic into practice and showing you how the JW's could be termed a cult by 'observation'.
so you would propose that exclusion from the main body was a defining criteria, how interesting, native Americans also practised excluding and banishment for misdemeanour's against the main body, are they also a cult, by your definition? hows that working for you? its your logic.
Originally posted by Proper Knobwell you should because either they fit your definition of a cult or your definition is wrong and cannot stand up to falsification. Again, your words and your logic and I thank you for proposing it as we can now see that it does not stand up to falsification and therefore ostracising others cannot be a definitive characteristic of a cult, unless of course native Americans are considered a cult.
I don't care what the native Americans did. I was just putting your logic into practice and showing you how the JW's could be termed a cult by 'observation'.
02 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf there were tribes of native Americans who practiced shunning, then yes we can describe them as a cult. I'll probably guess they had charismatic leaders as well.
well you should because either they fit your definition of a cult or your definition is wrong and cannot stand up to falsification. Again, your words and your logic and I thank you for proposing it as we can now see that it does not stand up to falsification and therefore ostracising others cannot be a definitive characteristic of a cult, unless of course native Americans are considered a cult.
Have you got any empirical scientific data that tribes of native Americans actually did practice shunning? Remember it needs to be 'observed'.
Just to add, this isn't my definition, i chose shunning because your organisation shared the same practice with Scientology.