17 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy don't you just address the content of the OP? Your allegations about the motivations of the person who posted the OP are a side issue. Constantly referring to it does not address the content of the OP at all.
it was not intended to address it, it was intended rather successfully to highlight why
the OP posted this thread, he has publicly admitted that his motivation was not concern
for any alleged abuse, but simply as an expression of his hatred through a futile
attempt to make us look bad because he perceived that we were somehow claiming to
be s ...[text shortened]... nor
there, it is relevant because it demonstrates the intent and motive for having posted it.
17 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes. I have read what bbar said and what you said and what galveston75 said. I am not constructing "straw man" arguments: I am quoting galveston75 verbatim. I am specifically referring to exactly what he said. Not a "straw man", but verbatim, what he said.
if you read the post given to bbar you will see that this has been addressed. You really should read the wikipedia article for it is clear that you have not, otherwise you would not need to reiterate your concerns nor speculate as to what may be the case, for clearly you are making straw arguments.
At the start of this thread, galveston75 said there needed to be 2 witnesses "...to prevent false accusations. If another cannot be found then the wisdom of the elders and knowing the facts and situations would lead them to a decision on how to proceed."
Then on page six galveston75 said "...if this [suspected abuser] did not repent or satisfy the congregation and it wanting to protect the individuals in it, then the authorities could be notified buy the victim."
Can you honestly not see how this is a deeply troubling approach to this issue? It is certainly going to be a approach that under reports the extent of a problem.
17 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFwell then i having nothing more to say, the point of 'two witnesses', has been
Yes. I have read what bbar said and what you said and what galveston75 said. I am not constructing "straw man" arguments: I am quoting galveston75 verbatim. I am specifically referring to exactly what he said. Not a "straw man", but verbatim, what he said.
At the start of this thread, galveston75 said there needed to be 2 witnesses "...to prevent false acc ssue? It is certainly going to be a approach that under reports the extent of a problem.
addressed, with reference, from a publicly available source. If you are seriously
interested in addressing it, why have you made no reference to that publicly available
source?
17 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFi have addressed the points that i felt were relevant to the claims being made and it is
Why don't you just address the content of the OP? Your allegations about the motivations of the person who posted the OP are a side issue. Constantly referring to it does not address the content of the OP at all.
relevant to point out a motivating factor, in fact, criminality has always been concerned
with motive. The op has publicly admitted to creating the thread with an ulterior
motive in a vain attempt to make others look bad, seriously undermining the validity of
any content that he may post, for clearly he is not an individual that can be trusted.
17 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you then distancing yourself from what galveston75 has claimed on this thread?
well then i having nothing more to say, the point of 'two witnesses', has been
addressed, with reference, from a publicly available source. If you are seriously
interested in addressing it, why have you made no reference to that publicly available
source?
17 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour dislike or distrust for the poster who created this thread, or speculation or statements about his "motive", does not in and of itself undermine the validity of OP's content [seeing as the original poster did not write the OP's content] and claiming that it does, does not constitute addressing the content of the OP.
The op has publicly admitted to creating the thread with an ulterior
motive in a vain attempt to make others look bad, seriously undermining the validity of any content that he may post, for clearly he is not an individual that can be trusted.
17 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFit appears to me that the whole basis of your 'concerns', hinges on a statement made
Are you then distancing yourself from what galveston75 has claimed on this thread?
in isolation. The point of the two witnesses has already been addressed, but you
make no reference to anything other than the Gmans statement seriously undermining
your claim that you are really interested in ascertaining what our position actually is,
otherwise, well, you would have made reference, but you haven't.
I myself find nothing objectionable about the statement, if indeed not only that two
witnesses cannot be established, nor even one , with the exception of the victim
then who else is there to go to the local authorities unless the victim themselves
actually tell someone, indeed, you will now explain how anything other than the
victim informing a local authority or the elders or anyone else for that matter will
work in a position where there are no witness but the victim and the perpetrator of
the crime.
17 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFI think its does, if he cannot be trusted then neither can the content of his posts. I
Your dislike or distrust for the poster who created this thread, or speculation or statements about his "motive", does not in and of itself undermine the validity of OP's content [seeing as the original poster did not write the OP's content] and claiming that it does, does not constitute addressing the content of the OP.
have addressed the points that were relevant, with reference to publicly available
sources, you may make reference to those if you have any genuine concerns.
17 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust be clear. Are you distancing yourself from what galveston75 has claimed on this thread?
it appears to me that the whole basis of your 'concerns', hinges on a statement made
in isolation. The point of the two witnesses has already been addressed, but you
make no reference to anything other than the Gmans statement seriously undermining
your claim that you are really interested in ascertaining what our position actually is,
other k in a position where there are no witness but the victim and the perpetrator of
the crime.
On page 6 he said "...if this [suspected abuser] did not repent or satisfy the congregation and it wanting to protect the individuals in it, then the authorities could be notified buy the victim." Are you distancing yourself from this statement?
17 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou think http://www.religioustolerance.org is a "hate blog" run by "haters" and "liars"?
I think its does, if he cannot be trusted then neither can the content of his posts. I
have addressed the points that were relevant, with reference to publicly available
sources, you may make reference to those if you have any genuine concerns.