Intimidation And Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses.

[_John Larsen]

I once asked a Witness friend of mine why Kingdom Halls are built without windows. He told me that vandalism is common against the Kingdom Halls and they don't put windows in to keep people from throwing bricks and things through them. Wikipediaseems to confirm this:

In areas of repeated or reputed vandalism, particularly in cities, some Kingdom Hall are built without windows to reduce the risk of property damage.

When the Mormon stop building buildings with window, they might be in this league.

[_Gadianton]

Jehovah's Witnesses I will never let in. They as a religion are in many ways worse than Mormons. If you think it's rough being a Mormon apostate, try leaving the JWs. If one thinks Mormons are close-minded to criticism, try having a conversation with a JW. How many JWs do you encounter online facing criticism? Of course, they take more persecution than Mormons do, that's the fair point of this thread. There is no one so persecuted as a Mormon apologist who grew up gobbling down french fries drenched in the Mormon popularized "fry sauce" safely within an LDS stronghold with all the privilages. That's basic psychology though. The spoiled well-to-do kid is always going to cry more.

A Mormon could also try being a B'hai in Iran under the rule of a religion that at least one apologist claims is much like Mormonism.

I for one am LOVING the cries of persecution coming from the apologists as their dumb-ass leaders try and sell persecution of others as persecution of themselves.

[_ttribe]

In comparison to Jehovah's Witnesses, the simple fact is this: Some Mormons are just pathetic whinging and whining WIMPS. ttribe is in line for the Gold medal.

Now get your apologetic ass here, ttribe, so I can roast you!!

LOL.

Classy Ray. I have no quarrel with the notion that the JW's have suffered unimaginable persecution. I simply reject the idea that there is some arbitrary threshold above which it is "okay" to defend oneself and below which silence is a requirement.

[_Ray A]

I simply reject the idea that there is some arbitrary threshold above which it is "okay" to defend oneself and below which silence is a requirement.

Where did I say silence is a requirement? Or is that your classy way of misreading?

[_ttribe]

I simply reject the idea that there is some arbitrary threshold above which it is "okay" to defend oneself and below which silence is a requirement.

Where did I say silence is a requirement? Or is that your classy way of misreading?

I suppose it was just how I interpreted your statements on the matter; although it seemed rather clear to me...care to clarify your position then?

[_Ray A]

I suppose it was just how I interpreted your statements on the matter; although it seemed rather clear to me...care to clarify your position then?

As I said on MAD, Oaks was fully, entirely, and absolutely within his rights to speak out. The bulk of criticism directed at him was not against his right to speak out, but at the awfully poor analogy he chose, and no amount of semantic belly-dancing and Olympic gymnastics can change that fact, as Analytics tried to point out, in vain.

It is the strained apologetic efforts to defend Oaks and deny what he had written and said that was way overboard. It seems like Scott Lloyd wanted to keep the fight going, which was why I questioned why he started another thread in effect to start another shit-fight with critics. Victory at all costs. DanGB made the most sense of all the LDS posters, and the apologist blood-hounds eventually turned on him too.

As I also said, while I never intended to deny the past persecution of Mormons, nor justify what happened to some Mormons as a result of Prop 8, methinks you protest too much in comparison to others who have suffered far more than what you have, hence this thread for some "perspective".

The other fact is that if Oaks hadn't made that bungling and ill-timed comparison to Blacks in the South, on any level, it is very likely that both the media and critics would have taken him more seriously.
That he should refer to a people who were denied the highest privileges in the Mormon Church until 1978, and also denied their civil freedoms (and punished for trying to exercise them), in the same context as Mormons being intimidated for exercising rights they have always had (post-statehood), is a misnomer, and even offensive to some. Few failed to see the irony.

Of course it was wrong to target Mormons, and no decent person would defend that, and many spoke out against it. But the subject was being "done to death" on MAD in an attempt to entirely vindicate Oaks, who himself admitted that his comparison could not be justified on all levels. The truth is that he should never have used it in the first place.

Then some on the MAD board began referring to critics as being "intimidating". I was banished from that thread by force with the bogus claim that I was "derailing", so I call that "moderator intimidation".

You want to know the truth now? After I commented on Bsix's OP I had no intention of commenting on that thread again, unless someone replied to me.

You did. I didn't even enter the thread until page 6.

The real truth is that the MAD moderators are controlling bullies.

[_ttribe]

The real truth is that the MAD moderators are controlling bullies.

Since I'm not one of the MAD moderators, I'm unsure why you felt it necessary to point your verbal assault towards me in this thread here at MD then. Curious thing, that.

[_Ray A]

Since I'm not one of the MAD moderators, I'm unsure why you felt it necessary to point your attack towards me in this thread here at MD then. Curious thing, that.

Because you were among the whining, nit-picking apologists. You could have at least had the bloody decency and at least defended my right to keep posting on that thread, and challenged the moderator call, as I did.

But Pilate-like, all you did was say "you do not speak for me".

Gutless.

[_ttribe]

Since I'm not one of the MAD moderators, I'm unsure why you felt it necessary to point your attack towards me in this thread here at MD then. Curious thing, that.

Because you were among the whining, nit-picking apologists. You could have at least had the bloody decency and at least defended my right to keep posting on that thread, and challenged the moderator call, as I did.

But Pilate-like, all you did was say "you do not speak for me".

Gutless.

Maybe I didn't see things the way you did. Maybe there is such a thing as a genuine difference of opinion Ray. And maybe, just maybe, I don't really care how the moderators do their jobs. I've had my nose slapped by them more than once and felt it was unjustified, but the one thing I didn't do was get all riled up about it. It's their board; they want to run it that way, then it's their business. I hardly think this was an issue that needed you to appeal to my "bloody decency", nor justified your now repeated ad hominem attacks on my character. Besides, you have, more than once, reminded me that you don't much care what I think (about anything)...not sure why you'd care now.

[_Ray A]

Maybe I didn't see things the way you did. Maybe there is such a thing as a genuine difference of opinion Ray.

That isn't the point. The call of "derailing" was wrong, and subsequent posts very similar to mine were left without any such charges, but apparently the mods realised this then soon closed the thread after I was given the ultimatum. Later on one mod said he/she was "sick of the Oaks debate", an opinion I offered long before that.

And maybe, just maybe, I don't really care how the moderators do their jobs. I've had my nose slapped by them more than once and felt it was unjustified, but the one thing I didn't do was get all riled up about it. It's their board; they want to run it that way, then it's their business.

I hardly think this was an issue that needed you to appeal to my "bloody decency", nor justified your now repeated ad hominem attacks on my character. Besides, you have, more than once, reminded me that you don't much care what I think (about anything)...not sure why you'd care now.

I didn't get riled up, either. I left the thread when given the ultimatum, though I felt the decision was wrong. Then, when I tried to post on another thread later, and as noted a very innocuous post, I got screened. That was when I got riled up, and it only added fuel to the false "derailing" charge.

And I'm afraid we at least see something on this apostate board called MDB that we don't see on MAD. Even DCP has had his fair share of staunch defenders here, even at times from critics who disagreed with him, when they felt he was being unfairly attacked. He seems to have conveniently forgotten all those times.