Spirituality
22 Sep 12
23 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFas i stated, haters are gonna hate, your understanding of the term and its application are not mine, its the height of arrogance to suggest that they are, please try to refrain from projecting your own angle as if they are someone else's or at very least try to determine what the other persons understanding is, prior to launching into your usual tirades.
I don't think trying to dismiss criticism as "hate" is something that works, though you often resort to it. It demonstrates a basically authoritarian instinct when you do so, or it demonstrates that you and your thinking are locked into an authoritarian mental environment. To characterize those who criticize your organization for coherent reasons backed by exper s" is a kind of victim-hood that rather undermines your claim to be a 'free moral agent'.
23 Sep 12
4 edits
Originally posted by FMFEverything has a perspective, a way of looking at things, i have not dismissed their criticisms, i have not invalidated their claims on the basis of hate, that was not my intention, but because you have not taken the time to understand what my intent was, because you deal in assumption as is self evident from your text you thought that it was, if you think that its weak or anything else , that's because its your understanding, its not mine. I dare say you might do better if you try to address your cynicism and inability to be unassuming, until then, all your posts will ever amount to is our own perspective and are irrelevant to anyone else. I repeat irrelevant, meaningless to anyone but you etc etc
The 'edited text' just makes what you're saying sound even less convincing. Trying to dismiss critics as "haters" is one of the weakest ad hominems out there.
23 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour "intent" is evident from what you posted.
Everything has a perspective, a way of looking at things, i have not dismissed their criticisms, i have not invalidated their claims on the basis of hate, that was not my intention, but because you have not taken the time to understand what my intent was, because you deal in assumption as is self evident from your text you thought that it was, if you ...[text shortened]... and are irrelevant to anyone else. I repeat irrelevant, meaningless to anyone but you etc etc
menace71 posted this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses and commented "All very valid points".
And your response was "Haters gonna hate".
It's one of the weakest responses you could possibly come up with.
23 Sep 12
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFno the only meaning it has is what you have given it, because that's what you deal in assumptions. This is not the first time FMF hat you have been caught doing so, whether they are valid points or not is not my issue, my concern was and is that any criticism must be unbiased and objective and this will be evident in the appraisal, if it is not, then the criticism is biased and may have some other motive validating my assertion, that irrespective of haters or anyone else people often make their minds up regardless. Can you point out any single positive aspect that your link cites, if not, it is a biased appraisal, negative and lacking objectivity, for not all criticism need be so, indeed, it should ultimately be constructive. I publicly challenge you to provide a single positive reference from your link or stop taking peoples comments at face value and try to find out what it is they are actually saying. It may make you a less tedious forum contributor.
Your "intent" is evident from what you posted.
menace71 posted this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses and commented "All very valid points".
And your response was "Haters gonna hate".
It's one of the weakest responses you could possibly come up with.
23 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Haters gonna hate" is a weak, weak ad hominem, robbie, that smacks of insecurity and victim-card-play. Just saying. Others may disagree with me. I don't expect you to.
no the only meaning it has is what you have given it, because that's what you deal in assumptions. This is not the first time FMF hat you have been caught doing so, whether they are valid points or not is not my issue, my concern was and is that any criticism must be unbiased and objective and this will be evident in the appraisal, if it is not, then ...[text shortened]... isal, negative and lacking objectivity, i challenge you to provide a single positive reference.
23 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhich criticisms at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses do you consider to be "constructive"?
Can you point out any single positive aspect that your link cites, if not, it is a biased appraisal, negative and lacking objectivity, for not all criticism need be so, indeed, it should ultimately be constructive.
23 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFa single positive reference or troll somewhere else. Do you generally dismiss the entire content of a post because you have been caught passing off assumptions? and here you are talking of weakness, rich.
"Haters gonna hate" is a weak, weak ad hominem, robbie, that smacks of insecurity and victim-card-play. Just saying. Others may disagree with me. I don't expect you to.
23 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere's plenty of positive material at wikipedia about the Jehovah's Witnesses, as both you and I know. The section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses, posted by menace71, which you dismissed as "haters gonna hate", are criticisms of your organisation. Do you consider any of them to be "constructive"?
you said they are all valid, produce a single positive appraisal or admit that they are biased.