Moderator: Edi
How convienent. There are many that have one that would be willing to do the work for you, including me. Hell, I'll pay postage.Vertigo1 wrote: One problem. No scanner.
That is precisely how I have advocated teaching logical thinking skills to religious people; by applying them to things like the news, advertising, etc. Not by applying them to religion right away, which will cause them to immediately throw up a defensive wall and close off their minds to input.aronkerkhof wrote:That makes sense. JW's often have superhuman cool at the door, but you can catch them off gaurd in a more personal setting. Your friend there had a madding situation to be in. I count myself grateful and fortunate that I was introduced to logical fallacies in regards to something that I held no personal stake in. It helped me dispassionately apply them to other things I held more dearly later.
I did not mention physical violence. I was talking about swearing at them, generally being abusive, or perhaps bringing out the water hose. If somebody won't leave you alone despite being told to stay off your property, that is both harassment and trespassing. They don't get any sympathy from me, beyond basic human rights (shooting someone for being a pushy asshole is not reasonable).Physical violence is warranted just because somebody shows up more than once?
It doesn't matter. They were told to go away, and they ignored the request. This makes their behaviour harassment and trespassing.Think about it. They don't want to go where they are obviously not wanted. This is different then going back when someone says merely "I'm not interested." They may change their mind later, and people do change their minds.
What part of "stay away" do those fucking people not understand?Also, people move around, so even if you get placed on the list, you will most likely receive a call every 1-5 years by an experienced JW that won't try to preach at you, just say something along the lines of "our records show you as someone who does not want witnesses calling on them, and we are in the process of keeping them up to date. Do you still feel this way?"
Then explain why so many of them are so goddamned persistent even after being told to get the fuck out. As I said, we used to regular visits from JWs even though we always told them to go away.They keep detailed records, but people make mistakes. Let me assure you that witnesses are absolutely mortified when they realize that they just did call on or were about to call on someone on the DNC list. They are representing the almighty, after all, and such mundane errors reflect poorly on him.
That's not what we're talking about. Baptists scream because you hold different beliefs, but a homeowner gets angry because you trespass on his property even after being told that you're not welcome. You said it yourself: it's a lot easier to keep your cool when you're not being confronted on your own personal territory. What is more personal than your HOME?Again, I am sympathetic. But there are negative reactions, and there are negative reactions. I expect drooling idiot baptists to blow up and call down the fire of hell and scream and yell at people that have different beliefs from them. I wouldn't expect it from patrons of this board.
Actually, a JW is more rude than a telemarketer. At least a telemarketer does not actually trespass on your property; he limits himself to annoying phone calls.Besides, we're talking about knocking on your front door by people that live in your community. They aren't throwing a pail of cold water in your bed or peeking in your windows. There is a certain dignity of accountability there that is lacking in, say, a telemarketer. But I can certainly see where a person would disagree.
What part of "people move from their houses" do you not understand? Or do you think a request to stay away should be in perpetuity, no matter who lives there or what happens to the property?What part of "stay away" do those fucking people not understand?
Nonsense; where the fuck did you grow up? Didn't you have an old man in your neighbourhood who would spray kids with a garden hose if they bothered him?aronkerkhof wrote:Spraying someone with a water hose who is not prepared to be sprayed *is* a physical act of violence. Its not as bad as punching them in the face, but it is unquestionably a hateful act.
Hope you enjoy being in prison after trespassing on his property and assaulting him.If someone did it to my wife and I found out about it, I'd put a boot in their ass.
Yeah right, you can put out someone's eye by spraying him with a garden hoseI don't care how many times she'd called. My wife isn't so foolish, so in general I don't worry. But any wiseguy out there that trys it in the real world and ends up putting an eye out better be ready to lose a huge lawsuit.
The part where people have a default right to harass others with no evidence whatsoever that they're interested. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD: accosting someone at his home is not a neutral act. It is an inherently intrusive act, and as such, the person committing it has no right to expect to be treated nicely. Particularly when I've never once had a JW apologize for bothering me at home before starting his sales pitch.What part of "people move from their houses" do you not understand?What part of "stay away" do those fucking people not understand?
There are other ways to find out if someone moved, besides going to his house and bothering him. Every time I've moved into a new neighbourhood, there's some kind of welcome wagon. It's not exactly a profound secret that cannot possibly be discerned without harassing the person living there.Or do you think a request to stay away should be in perpetuity, no matter who lives there or what happens to the property?
Then they have just violated my instruction, and should not expect to be treated politely.If you tell a witness to go away, they will go away. However, they will come back eventually, and I've already explained why.
Even a fucking telemarketer knows what "I'm not interested" means, Aron. JWs simply choose to deliberately interpret it as something else; in short, they insist that you explicitly tell them not to come back EVER or they will continually harass you, and even if you do so, they will eventually call again anyway!If you tell them "go away, never come back" they *should* add you to the list.
I shouldn't have to know certain procedures for getting JWs to stop harassing me. It is the Hall's responsibility to police its own members' actions, and if they won't do so, then they are responsible. Comprende?That will earn you respite from evangelical-type calls. If for what ever reason, that doesn't work, call the local hall and tell them. That will unfailingly work, because every Hall that I know has its phone routed to the personal home of the elder in charge of that Hall, and one of his jobs is to make sure there isn't public outcry about the work.
And what I'm saying is that the entire system is deliberately set up in such a manner as to create excuses for repeatedly harassing people in their homes. That is the responsibility of those who run the system, and blaming the victim for getting angry at the difficulty of ending the harassment is not only unfair, but it's downright asinine.Now, you'll probably complain that there is an extra step you have to go through, and yeah, its a pain. But guess which is more effective? Swearing at a witness who just has a territory to work and has no record of you ever requesting him not coming (obviously, or he woun't be there) and having the scene repeat itself ad infinitum or making sure you are on the list? All I'm doing is trying to give advice from someone who knows to those that truly do want to end the calls.
It is if you told the person to go the fuck away and don't come back.Knocking on your front door is not tresspassing, even if you post a no tresspassing sign.
JWs verbally abuse people; they just do it without using swear-words. Substance over style, Aron. If someone comes to my house to tell me that I'm a bad person because I don't believe in God, he just INSULTED ME ON MY OWN FUCKING DOORSTEP. If I choose to be polite to him, that is a nice thing to do. But know this: I have no moral obligation to turn the other cheek.But that's as much as I can say about the subject. If people want the calls to stop, my information will help them, but if they want to cultivate a feeling of victimhood and rather verbally abuse people, that's certainly their perogative. It just doesn't help the cause, and its a rather unenlightened way to do things.
False analogy. My kids aren't telling them they're bad people if they don't do it.aronkerkhof wrote:No, I didn't have an old man that turned a garden hose on kids that annoyed him. Where the hell did *you* grow up, in a Dennis the Menace strip? So, you'd be fine with a neighbor spraying your kids for, say, school fundraising?
Oh, puh-lease. Like someone's going to put a focusing attachment on his garden hose and point it right at somebody's eye. "Oh there's JWs at the door! Quick, let me put a focusing attachment on my garden hose!"Yes, you can do signifigant damage to eye tissue by spraying it with a jet from a garden hose, presumably with some sort of focusing attachment. Don't believe me? Try it sometime, and then tell me its not physically abusive. Shit, I'd rather you spit on me then spray me with a hose, at least that's keeping "harrassment" at roughly equivalent levels.
Actually, the correct word is "accost". "Harass" applies if they won't stop. And no, people do not have the default right (ethical right; I don't care if the letter of the law permits it) to bother you in your own home, particularly if you have told them before that you're not interested. They could always leave a brochure if that's all they want to do.Yes, people do have the default right to take a message to someone who may or may not want to hear it. You keep using words like "accost" and "harrass" to color the situation, when at best you could use "annoy".
Hint to the hair-splitter: it is rude to annoy people.I never said telemarketing was rude. It is annoying ...
They are less persistent than JWs, at least in my experience. And it's easier to get them off the phone than it is to get a JW off your porch.You say that a telemarketer would never call you back after saying you're not interested. This contention is simply untrue. A quick visit to junkbusters.com will quickly disabuse you of that thought.
I can do it; why can't they? Or do you think I'm lying when I say I know when people move in and out of my neighbourhood? You said yourself that a JW shouldn't be doing that unless he lives in the neighbourhood; it is hardly unreasonable to expect that JW to know whether someone has moved.You then ask JW's to some how pre-qualify people to receive their message. Then, after that, you expect them to "watch for welcome wagons and moving trucks?"
Bullshit. They can always go to the JWs themselves if they want to hear what they have to say. This is the worst kind of sophistry to say that if they are not repeatedly being accosted on their own porch, they are somehow "denied the chance" to express interest.And you deny anyone the chance to change their mind at a later time and decide they would in fact like to hear what the witnesses say.
You're missing something. See above.You say the system I describe is "asinine", but what you suggest is not only ludicrous, but impossible to impliment, unless I'm missing something.
Yes you did. It was written right in your Watchtower magazine. I did not develop my animosity toward JW visits until I actually sat down and read some of the Watchtower magazines they left after one of their numerous visits. That's when they changed from an intrusive annoyance into a genuinely offensive phenomenon for me.Finally, you say that witnesses come to your door and say that you are a bad person for not believing in God. If that is truly the case, then by all means give them both barrels, metaphoricly speaking. I will not argue against such loathsome treatment. I never went to the door with that message, and neither do anyone I know and care about.
Actually, many mildly retarded people become accustomed to treating everyone around them like shit because they get the kid-gloves treatment. I've known clowns like this. You advocate precisely the kind of coddling bullshit that merely helps them perpetuate that behaviour.Look, if an obviously mentally retarded person says "HAHA MIKE! YOU IS STUPID!" and you berated him, you'd be an asshole.
Perhaps because they don't have a belief system, and they don't like people handing out literature blaming unbelievers for everything that's wrong with society.What particularly burns me up, is that I was once that mentally retarded person, and people who *know better* would lack the compassion required to at least treat me like a human being, and give a good accounting of their own belief system.
I do not understand the viewpoint of anyone who is rude and then thinks the others are "assholes" for returning the favour.If you can't understand that viewpoint, or want to resort to calling it "blaming the victim", fine.
If he doesn't support kids he's a bad person, because they won't have books and other things they need by implication. After all, that's what their pitch is and the flyers and brochures all state that. If that's not the thought that your kids had in mind, too bad, they still get sprayed in the face.False analogy. My kids aren't telling them they're bad people if they don't do it.
Somebody says they sprayed someone with a garden hose I don't get the picture of them holding the hose over their head, letting the water just kind of drip on them. The word "sprays" conveys that meaning.Oh, puh-lease. Like someone's going to put a focusing attachment on his garden hose and point it right at somebody's eye. "Oh there's JWs at the door! Quick, let me put a focusing attachment on my garden hose!"
I might have said neighbor, but I didn't mean that in the most literal sense. They are from the local community, and thus might not be privy to the details of every house and street. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.I can do it; why can't they? Or do you think I'm lying when I say I know when people move in and out of my neighbourhood? You said yourself that a JW shouldn't be doing that unless he lives in the neighbourhood; it is hardly unreasonable to expect that JW to know whether someone has moved.
Sophistry? You think I'm deliberately trying to deceive you? If your reasoning were true, we wouldn't get advertisements, everyone would psychicly know when they wanted something and where to go and find it. Maybe when there is a "Religion Mart" with a Witness isle in every community that people can browse around and check things out your idea would have merit.They can always go to the JWs themselves if they want to hear what they have to say. This is the worst kind of sophistry to say that if they are not repeatedly being accosted on their own porch, they are somehow "denied the chance" to express interest.
Alright, I'll concede this point, but that is all. You can say that people have a right to be dicks when someone does something preceived rude to them, and I've never disputed that. What you have failed to show is how this course of action is of lasting benefit to anyone. What the fuck?I did not develop my animosity toward JW visits until I actually sat down and read some of the Watchtower magazines they left after one of their numerous visits. That's when they changed from an intrusive annoyance into a genuinely offensive phenomenon for me.
Stop exaggerating and being a hypersensitive prick. Did I say that I was going to take a water hose, put a focusing attachment on the end, and blast someone right in the face? No, so you can take your strawman and shove it up your ass. I do not like having my argument repeatedly misrepresented.aronkerkhof wrote:If he doesn't support kids he's a bad person, because they won't have books and other things they need by implication. After all, that's what their pitch is and the flyers and brochures all state that. If that's not the thought that your kids had in mind, too bad, they still get sprayed in the face.False analogy. My kids aren't telling them they're bad people if they don't do it.
So you leap to the black/white fallacy that it's either a light drip from gravity or a full-blast high-intensity shot to the eye? You are allowing your emotion to control your argument, because even the greenest debating novice can see the fallacy in your argument.Somebody says they sprayed someone with a garden hose I don't get the picture of them holding the hose over their head, letting the water just kind of drip on them. The word "sprays" conveys that meaning.
OK, so what you're saying is that they go through an area they don't necessarily know very well. Why is that any different from coming across town?I might have said neighbor, but I didn't mean that in the most literal sense. They are from the local community, and thus might not be privy to the details of every house and street. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.
Everyone already knows the JWs exist.Sophistry? You think I'm deliberately trying to deceive you? If your reasoning were true, we wouldn't get advertisements, everyone would psychicly know when they wanted something and where to go and find it.
What, people don't have legs or telephones in your area, so they can't call or visit if they're curious? There are actually many forms of passive advertisement such as flyers; you are relying upon a false dilemma fallacy between door-knocking and disappearing into the void.Maybe when there is a "Religion Mart" with a Witness isle in every community that people can browse around and check things out your idea would have merit.
Perhaps because I never claimed it was of lasting benefit to anyone. What I disputed was your claim that those who react angrily are "assholes".Alright, I'll concede this point, but that is all. You can say that people have a right to be dicks when someone does something preceived rude to them, and I've never disputed that. What you have failed to show is how this course of action is of lasting benefit to anyone. What the fuck?
And what if he does not respond to politely worded corrections, hmm? As I said, I've known people like this. I knew one guy in particular who used to openly hit on other guys' wives right in front of them, sometimes even trying to grope them. There are limits to what a man should be expected to react politely to.I'm at a loss of words about your comments about retarded people. There is a broad spectrum of reactions between retaliation of verbal abuse and meekly accepting the retarded kids barb. Some where in the middle you find dignity for both of you, and still get the point across that its not ok to make fun of people.
What the hell? I'm talking about kangaroo boy. You're presumably defending his behavior.Darth Wong wrote: Stop exaggerating and being a hypersensitive prick. Did I say that I was going to take a water hose, put a focusing attachment on the end, and blast someone right in the face? No, so you can take your strawman and shove it up your ass. I do not like having my argument repeatedly misrepresented.
Sure, guilty as charged, as far as the emotional part goes. How about you? I've worn that on my sleeve since the beginning, thinking it might possible make people empathise with me. Whoops. Now, if you'll recall, I mentioned that shooting someone with a blast of water is an act of physical violence, and it could lead to more severe than expected consequences. You pooh poohed that, and here we are.So you leap to the black/white fallacy that it's either a light drip from gravity or a full-blast high-intensity shot to the eye? You are allowing your emotion to control your argument, because even the greenest debating novice can see the fallacy in your argument.
I can know an area pretty well without knowing who is moving in and out of a neighborhood, Mike. People react more positively to someone from their community at the door than someone from out of town, and it is preceived as less "offensive".OK, so what you're saying is that they go through an area they don't necessarily know very well. Why is that any different from coming across town?
Mike, this is absurd. You throw around assertions like this as if it is fact, and you don't even know. I'm telling you right now that a bigger percentage than you know don't know who or what JW's are. I would know, cause I've spent more of life than I'd like to admit talking to people about this very subject. And of those that do, a vanishingly small percentage know what they think and believe.Everyone already knows the JWs exist.
And you're claiming that door to door is the only form of advertising they engage in. Its not, they do exactly as you say. Door to door has historically been the most effective tool for recruitment, period.What, people don't have legs or telephones in your area, so they can't call or visit if they're curious? There are actually many forms of passive advertisement such as flyers; you are relying upon a false dilemma fallacy between door-knocking and disappearing into the void.
I said they act like assholes and its counter productive.Perhaps because I never claimed it was of lasting benefit to anyone. What I disputed was your claim that those who react angrily are "assholes".
That sounds exactly what I'm saying right now. Let me select another quote from the same post:You have consistently tried to change the subject here. You originally said "You do not have to vehemently disagree with them and be and ass and call them names and whatnot to get them to not call back";
I don't think you or I have ever been on the same page on this whole thing. I've never attempted to exaggerate your position, but you seem willing to defend and excuse whatever behavior that users of this board have claimed to engage in, short of pulling a gun on a person, and that is what I'm addressing. I'm not excusing the behavior of witnesses, hell I came down pretty hard on Enigma, merely attempting to explain, to enhance understanding, which might help people deal with it in a more productive manner. This exchange probably would have gone down better if it weren't for Vertigo bragging about allegedly abusing witnesses and that being injected into the debate.in other words, you said that anyone who calls a JW names is being an "ass" even though he is merely returning the JW's rudeness. Ever since then, you have been attempting to exaggerate my position so that I'm trying to blind people or blast high-pressure water in their faces (or now, that I'm actually saying it creates some kind of "lasting benefit" to call JWs names).
You've known a lot of retarded people like this? Or is this an extreme example brought up just to invalidate my argument? Look, I'm agreeing with basically everything you say. However, the atmosphere on this board encourages the glorification of behavior that indirectly makes my life harder. I just want to counter balance that in particular. Is that so hard to understand? I really don't care to "win" any of the other tangental arguments related to that one. I think I'm giving the impression that I care about witness beliefs, when what I really care about is witness *people*.And what if he does not respond to politely worded corrections, hmm? As I said, I've known people like this. I knew one guy in particular who used to openly hit on other guys' wives right in front of them, sometimes even trying to grope them. There are limits to what a man should be expected to react politely to.
Not to jump into a debate between two others, but this is completely false. Having worked in sales in the past, I can tell you that things like TV ads and personal references from friends are far more effective than knocking on doors of strangers.aronkerkhof wrote:Door to door has historically been the most effective tool for recruitment, period.
Bullshit. Your presumptions are not my problem. Did I ever say it was OK to shove a shotgun in someone's face for coming to your door? Answer yes or no, please.aronkerkhof wrote:What the hell? I'm talking about kangaroo boy. You're presumably defending his behavior.
I pooh poohed that because shooting someone with water from your garden hose does not necessarily mean that you put a special focusing attachment on it and aim right for his eye. People shoot at each other with garden hoses all the time in my fucking backyard and no one's trying to injure anyone. "Bait and switch" is a common sales tactic but a piss-poor debate tactic, Aron.Sure, guilty as charged, as far as the emotional part goes. How about you? I've worn that on my sleeve since the beginning, thinking it might possible make people empathise with me. Whoops. Now, if you'll recall, I mentioned that shooting someone with a blast of water is an act of physical violence, and it could lead to more severe than expected consequences. You pooh poohed that, and here we are.
If the person doesn't know you well enough to even know whether you just moved in or not, then it doesn't matter whether he's from out of town. He doesn't actually know you at all, nor does he really live in your "neighbourhood", unless you have defined a rather large neighbourhood.I can know an area pretty well without knowing who is moving in and out of a neighborhood, Mike. People react more positively to someone from their community at the door than someone from out of town, and it is preceived as less "offensive".
Mike, this is absurd. You throw around assertions like this as if it is fact, and you don't even know.[/quote]Everyone already knows the JWs exist.
So? A vanishingly small percentage know what secular humanists really believe, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be rude for me to go around door to door handing out pamphlets telling everyone that they're "wicked" if they don't agree with us.I'm telling you right now that a bigger percentage than you know don't know who or what JW's are. I would know, cause I've spent more of life than I'd like to admit talking to people about this very subject. And of those that do, a vanishingly small percentage know what they think and believe.
That leads to the obvious question: what is the success rate of door-to-door sales, as opposed to other forms of marketing?And you're claiming that door to door is the only form of advertising they engage in. Its not, they do exactly as you say. Door to door has historically been the most effective tool for recruitment, period.
Yet you conceded later on that they may have been insulted by the literature being handed out. So you feel someone is an "asshole" if he insults someone back after being insulted himself?I said they act like assholes and its counter productive.Perhaps because I never claimed it was of lasting benefit to anyone. What I disputed was your claim that those who react angrily are "assholes".
With all due respect, you are missing the whole point I'm making. Would it be good to try and disabuse them of their notions? Yes. Does this mean that someone is an "asshole" if he does not do so? No. No one is morally obligated to turn the other cheek."If you don't want to hear it, fine, say so, but acting like a fool to them just reinforces their worldview and gives them something funny to relate to each other back in the car group. That in turn makes MY life harder when I try to explain you don't have to have a fundamentalist outlook on life and still be a nice person."
That's all I'm trying, or ever tried, to say. The closest thing you've come to really countering that was when you said:
"Witnesses that don't have the insight to see that they are intruding into my private space and insulting me on my doorstep don't deserve any respect."
That's a paraphrasing of what you said, because I'm getting tired of working this clunky interface. But I think its true to the spirit. Anyway, what this completely ignores is that what you criticise is a direct result of their worldview, which is what you are reinforcing when you react rudely to them. It is a big cycle. And its one I've felt like I've been trapped in so long its driving me fucking crazy.
Funny- you just said that I defended Kangaroo boy's claimed behaviour, now you admit that I haven't. Also, you think that by saying it's OK to squirt a water gun at a repeat visitor who's ignored requests to stay away, I am now advocating the use of a special focusing attachment on the end of a garden hose and a high-pressure blast to the face. If you honestly don't see how you've exaggerated my position, you're self-delusional.I don't think you or I have ever been on the same page on this whole thing. I've never attempted to exaggerate your position, but you seem willing to defend and excuse whatever behavior that users of this board have claimed to engage in, short of pulling a gun on a person, and that is what I'm addressing.
It would have gone down better if you did not engage in blatant strawman distortions in order to save your point. You have CONCEDED that it is rude to bother people at home. You have CONCEDED that the pamphlets you hand out may contain DIRECT INSULTS at the people you visit. The only thing left for you to concede is that someone who responds to an insult with "name-calling" is NOT necessarily an asshole.I'm not excusing the behavior of witnesses, hell I came down pretty hard on Enigma, merely attempting to explain, to enhance understanding, which might help people deal with it in a more productive manner. This exchange probably would have gone down better if it weren't for Vertigo bragging about allegedly abusing witnesses and that being injected into the debate.
Your argument is axiomatic, and this person is real. The point is that you think people are morally obligated to turn the other cheek, otherwise they're being "assholes". That's a ridiculous viewpoint; while it may be noble to try and be productive, it does not make someone an "asshole" not to do so.You've known a lot of retarded people like this? Or is this an extreme example brought up just to invalidate my argument?And what if he does not respond to politely worded corrections, hmm? As I said, I've known people like this. I knew one guy in particular who used to openly hit on other guys' wives right in front of them, sometimes even trying to grope them. There are limits to what a man should be expected to react politely to.
And what I'm saying is simply that people have a reasonable right to insult someone back after being insulted themselves, or to respond to persistent harassment with a squirt froma water hose if they won't stop (contrary to your strawman bullshit, most uses of a water hose do not involve high-pressure focusing attachments and full-intensity face blasts). You hand out literature which accuses people like me of being evil, and then complain that we're being "assholes" if we react angrily to the insult.Look, I'm agreeing with basically everything you say. However, the atmosphere on this board encourages the glorification of behavior that indirectly makes my life harder. I just want to counter balance that in particular. Is that so hard to understand? I really don't care to "win" any of the other tangental arguments related to that one. I think I'm giving the impression that I care about witness beliefs, when what I really care about is witness *people*.
No, you excluded that behavior explicitly in an earlier part of the discussion, and your claiming that I claimed your support went that far is distortion and grandstanding.Darth Wong wrote: Bullshit. Your presumptions are not my problem. Did I ever say it was OK to shove a shotgun in someone's face for coming to your door? Answer yes or no, please.
All I said is spraying someone with water from a hose when they aren't ready or willing is physical abuse. Now, what you have to decide is whether a) it is abuse and b) whether is it physical. Then you can decide if it is warranted by Witness activities. I don't think it is, you I guess do.I pooh poohed that because shooting someone with water from your garden hose does not necessarily mean that you put a special focusing attachment on it and aim right for his eye. People shoot at each other with garden hoses all the time in my fucking backyard and no one's trying to injure anyone. "Bait and switch" is a common sales tactic but a piss-poor debate tactic, Aron.
That is how *you* feel. It might be how everyone you know feels. That does not make it not an objective fact, and in my experience in this, which you have to admit outweighs yours, the opposite is the more common feeling. What *I* have to admit is that there are regional differences that might come to play in this as well.If the person doesn't know you well enough to even know whether you just moved in or not, then it doesn't matter whether he's from out of town. He doesn't actually know you at all, nor does he really live in your "neighbourhood", unless you have defined a rather large neighbourhood.
Now how the hell am I going to do that? Either accept my statement of fact, go out and canvas your own area for 20 years and get back with me on your results, or just call me a liar and be done with it. I keep asking you why the hell I would lie or makeup any of this.Bullshit. Find me one person in North America who's never heard of the JWs.
Goddammit, I'm not arguing with you, ok? You say "Its rude to go to people and tell them about your beliefs" and I say "how else are they going to reach people?" then you say "If people want to hear about witnesses, they can go to them" and I say "But many people don't know about witnesses" then you say "Its rude to go to people and tell them." or "there are other forms of witnesses that would be less rude" to which I say "Yet that is historically the most effective method, which belies the claim of universal rudeness." And around we go.So? A vanishingly small percentage know what secular humanists really believe, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be rude for me to go around door to door handing out pamphlets telling everyone that they're "wicked" if they don't agree with us.
I don't know. I do know that Witnesses are recognizing the diminishing effectiveness of door to door work, and are trying to move away from that to more informal witnessing, which I would presume you'd be more supportive of. But there is quite a bit of organizational inertia.That leads to the obvious question: what is the success rate of door-to-door sales, as opposed to other forms of marketing?
Yet you conceded later on that they may have been insulted by the literature being handed out. So you feel someone is an "asshole" if he insults someone back after being insulted himself?[/quote]I said they act like assholes and its counter productive.
"If you don't want to hear it, fine, say so, but acting like a fool to them just reinforces their worldview and gives them something funny to relate to each other back in the car group. That in turn makes MY life harder when I try to explain you don't have to have a fundamentalist outlook on life and still be a nice person."
That's all I'm trying, or ever tried, to say. The closest thing you've come to really countering that was when you said:
"Witnesses that don't have the insight to see that they are intruding into my private space and insulting me on my doorstep don't deserve any respect."
That's a paraphrasing of what you said, because I'm getting tired of working this clunky interface. But I think its true to the spirit. Anyway, what this completely ignores is that what you criticise is a direct result of their worldview, which is what you are reinforcing when you react rudely to them. It is a big cycle. And its one I've felt like I've been trapped in so long its driving me fucking crazy.
Perhaps your definition of asshole is different from mine. That is a distinct possibility, which I'll get to in my conclusion. The essence is that acting like a jerk in response to someone elses acting like a jerk is still... acting like a jerk. You might have an excuse to do so, but that doesn't change the objective fact.With all due respect, you are missing the whole point I'm making. Would it be good to try and disabuse them of their notions? Yes. Does this mean that someone is an "asshole" if he does not do so? No. No one is morally obligated to turn the other cheek.
I can't believe you are the one claiming I'm doing all the misrepresenting. It is clear that you defended and agree with his behavior *until* he pulled the gun, and that is exactly what I said. What is so funny about that?Funny- you just said that I defended Kangaroo boy's claimed behaviour, now you admit that I haven't.
Now I can't believe you are the one calling me a sensitive prick. You are putting words and premises in my mouth that I have never stated. You have taken a series of statements I put forth as the suggestion that spraying a person with water is abusive (which it is) and one off hand comment about it being *potentially* harmful (which it is), and then absurdifying it. If you think that's what I meant, fine, I apologize, and take it all back.Also, you think that by saying it's OK to squirt a water gun at a repeat visitor who's ignored requests to stay away, I am now advocating the use of a special focusing attachment on the end of a garden hose and a high-pressure blast to the face. If you honestly don't see how you've exaggerated my position, you're self-delusional.
Good grief. Had to go for the throat.It would have gone down better if you did not engage in blatant strawman distortions in order to save your point.
I am not willing to conceed that. They might not *be* an asshole, but they are acting like one, provoked or not. It is more eggregious in my mind because they are in a position to be charitable since they are presumably more enlightened and informed than the person provoking, especially considering what is at stake.You have CONCEDED that it is rude to bother people at home. You have CONCEDED that the pamphlets you hand out may contain DIRECT INSULTS at the people you visit. The only thing left for you to concede is that someone who responds to an insult with "name-calling" is NOT necessarily an asshole.
Your argument is axiomatic, and this person is real. The point is that you think people are morally obligated to turn the other cheek, otherwise they're being "assholes". That's a ridiculous viewpoint; while it may be noble to try and be productive, it does not make someone an "asshole" not to do so.[/quote]You've known a lot of retarded people like this? Or is this an extreme example brought up just to invalidate my argument?
Look, I'm agreeing with basically everything you say. However, the atmosphere on this board encourages the glorification of behavior that indirectly makes my life harder. I just want to counter balance that in particular. Is that so hard to understand? I really don't care to "win" any of the other tangental arguments related to that one. I think I'm giving the impression that I care about witness beliefs, when what I really care about is witness *people*.
The asshole scale is a sliding one. Heh. Anyway. At zero, we have what you call nobility. At 1 or 2, you have verbal abuse. At five, you have spraying someone with water, and at 7 you have pulling an unloaded gun on them. 8 and 9 would be various forms of physical retaliation, and 10 would be killing them. I know you have a more nuanced view than "asshole" or "not an asshole.And what I'm saying is simply that people have a reasonable right to insult someone back after being insulted themselves, or to respond to persistent harassment with a squirt froma water hose if they won't stop. You hand out literature which accuses people like me of being evil, and then complain that we're being "assholes" if we react angrily to the insult.
Wrong. You said very clearly that you thought I was expressing support for what Vertigo said he did. If you wish to backpedal, at least do so honestly, please.your claiming that I claimed your support went that far is distortion and grandstanding.
By your definition, my two boys are physically abusive to each other every time they go in the backyard on a hot summer day and spray each other. It is a pretty loose definition of "abuse", and your decision to read "spray with water" as some kind of high-intensity dangerous assault which can "put out an eye" is yours alone.All I said is spraying someone with water from a hose when they aren't ready or willing is physical abuse. Now, what you have to decide is whether a) it is abuse and b) whether is it physical. Then you can decide if it is warranted by Witness activities. I don't think it is, you I guess do.
If you had actually met someone who had never heard of the JWs, I would think you could say so. Instead, you say it's a lie to say that everybody's already heard of them, and you vaguely appeal to canvassing experience as evidence. How many times in your 20 years did somebody come to the door and say "Jehovah's Witnesses? Why, I've never heard of them!"?Now how the hell am I going to do that? Either accept my statement of fact, go out and canvas your own area for 20 years and get back with me on your results, or just call me a liar and be done with it. I keep asking you why the hell I would lie or makeup any of this.Bullshit. Find me one person in North America who's never heard of the JWs.
The literature itself is rude. Forcing someone to interrupt his day in order to receive this bountiful bundle of joy adds another layer on top of this rudeness.So I guess basically, canvassing an area with literature would not be rude, but knocking on the door crosses that boundary, even though you say the literature is more offensive than the visit itself?
If you want to spin it that way. However, you just upped to ante to real, physical damage that one would reasonably be expected to provide self-defense from. You're not talking insult, you're talking combat.Darth Wong wrote:OK, that clears it up. You think someone is an asshole if he retaliates in kind to an insult, ie- if you punch him in the face and he punches you back, he's an asshole. Obviously, we have rather different definitions of "asshole". In that respect, our dispute is unresolvable.
No, *you* are wrong. I never said you lent unqualified support to Veritgo. I've always said you support him until he pulled out the gun. That is true, right?Wrong. You said very clearly that you thought I was expressing support for what Vertigo said he did. If you wish to backpedal, at least do so honestly, please.
Your boys are dressed for it and willing co-conspirators, and thus there is no humiliation of one or the other involved. Who's building strawmen?By your definition, my two boys are physically abusive to each other every time they go in the backyard on a hot summer day and spray each other. It is a pretty loose definition of "abuse", and your decision to read "spray with water" as some kind of high-intensity dangerous assault which can "put out an eye" is yours alone.
More than 50, less than 100. Sorry that I can't be more specific that that. This only came up when I would start off with something like "Hi, I'm Aron, and I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps you're familiar with us?", which I didn't employ all that often. If I had started every conversation that way, the number would probably be higher.If you had actually met someone who had never heard of the JWs, I would think you could say so. Instead, you say it's a lie to say that everybody's already heard of them, and you vaguely appeal to canvassing experience as evidence. How many times in your 20 years did somebody come to the door and say "Jehovah's Witnesses? Why, I've never heard of them!"?
So? The logic is the same; the person does something bad to me, and if I do the same thing back to him, then I'm the asshole according to you.aronkerkhof wrote:If you want to spin it that way. However, you just upped to ante to real, physical damage that one would reasonably be expected to provide self-defense from. You're not talking insult, you're talking combat.Darth Wong wrote:OK, that clears it up. You think someone is an asshole if he retaliates in kind to an insult, ie- if you punch him in the face and he punches you back, he's an asshole. Obviously, we have rather different definitions of "asshole". In that respect, our dispute is unresolvable.
That is not black and white. There are many shades of grey between "asshole" and "wonderful person". That doesn't mean you have the right to call someone an asshole if you think he isn't being sufficiently wonderful. The onus is on you to support YOUR claim that anyone who calls a JW names under any circumstances (even repeated, unwanted visits) is being an "asshole".I would buy this line of argument if I really believed the witness hurt your feelings or did you emotional harm. And again you want to reduce things to black and white, asshole or not asshole, to an extreme situation, something you chide people for in general.
You said "I'm talking about kangaroo boy. You're presumably defending his behavior." Funny, I didn't see any qualifiers; you claimed that I was defending his behaviour. As I said, if you want to backpedal, do so now but do so without bullshitting and pretending you never said that.No, *you* are wrong. I never said you lent unqualified support to Veritgo. I've always said you support him until he pulled out the gun. That is true, right?
So? How does that change the fact that it's not a dangerous "assault" which can "put out an eye"? You made that ludicrous statement, and when challenged, you start mushing around in an attempt to distract from your obviously fallacious escalation of the scenario.Your boys are dressed for it and willing co-conspirators, and thus there is no humiliation of one or the other involved. Who's building strawmen?
And they actually said they'd never heard of the JWs? Honestly, I'm quite surprised.More than 50, less than 100. Sorry that I can't be more specific that that. This only came up when I would start off with something like "Hi, I'm Aron, and I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps you're familiar with us?", which I didn't employ all that often. If I had started every conversation that way, the number would probably be higher.
Right, this complaint from someone who took "garden hose" and turned that into an "assault" at "full blast" with a "focusing attachment" that can "put out an eye" and who has yet to acknowledge that there was anything wrong with that bullshit.Its also very uncool that when I ask you why you accuse me of lying, you come back and try to spin it so that it looks like I accused you of lying.
If you're seriously claiming that people met you at the door and said they'd never heard of the JWs, then I'll take you at your word. That's not what you said in your previous statement; you fudged and evaded and said that they didn't know all about your beliefs, which is not the same thing as not having heard of you. That's why I accused you of bullshitting, because you were answering a different question from the one that was posed.I'm accusing you of being ignorant of the facts, which should not be an insult, instead of knowlingly making shit up, which is what you said of me. That's bullshit of the highest order.
Sheer nuttery. You can't equate physical violence with verbal violence, even if the two parties are on equal footing, which in a witness/athiest showdown, hopefully wouldn't be the case.So? The logic is the same; the person does something bad to me, and if I do the same thing back to him, then I'm the asshole according to you.
This is semantics. I say their slightly an asshole, and you say he isn't sufficiently wonderful.That is not black and white. There are many shades of grey between "asshole" and "wonderful person". That doesn't mean you have the right to call someone an asshole if you think he isn't being sufficiently wonderful. The onus is on you to support YOUR claim that anyone who calls a JW names under any circumstances (even repeated, unwanted visits) is being an "asshole".
How quickly you've forgotten. Because I respect you so much, I'm going to go back and dredge all this up, just to clear the air between us.You said "I'm talking about kangaroo boy. You're presumably defending his behavior." Funny, I didn't see any qualifiers; you claimed that I was defending his behaviour. As I said, if you want to backpedal, do so now but do so without bullshitting and pretending you never said that.No, *you* are wrong. I never said you lent unqualified support to Veritgo. I've always said you support him until he pulled out the gun. That is true, right?
Haha! That was hilarious! What a funny guy. And notice how I exaggerated his position of lying in wait and using a high pressure attachment! No, wait, I didn't. Goddammit Mike, pull your head out of your ass and quit trying to call me a liar. It is *not* cool.Get this...they came back again! This time, I was ready for them. When they knocked on the door, I jumped out from behind the house and hosed them down from head to toe with ice cold water. (using the high pressure nozzle of course) The look on their faces was priceless!
Just to be sure I wasn't crazy, I asked my wife, my mom, and another witness friend, and they too have all had the experience. If you want to fact check me ask the guy you work with.And they actually said they'd never heard of the JWs? Honestly, I'm quite surprised.
I won't beat this dead horse.Right, this complaint from someone who took "garden hose" and turned that into an "assault" at "full blast" with a "focusing attachment" that can "put out an eye" and who has yet to acknowledge that there was anything wrong with that bullshit.Its also very uncool that when I ask you why you accuse me of lying, you come back and try to spin it so that it looks like I accused you of lying.
Lets have another history lesson:If you're seriously claiming that people met you at the door and said they'd never heard of the JWs, then I'll take you at your word. That's not what you said in your previous statement; you fudged and evaded and said that they didn't know all about your beliefs, which is not the same thing as not having heard of you. That's why I accused you of bullshitting, because you were answering a different question from the one that was posed.
For the SECOND time, I'm not equating physical violence with verbal violence. I'm saying that you think tit-for-tat makes you an asshole. The level of the tit-for-tat is irrelevant; the point is your logic of saying that tit-for-tat makes you an asshole.aronkerkhof wrote:Sheer nuttery. You can't equate physical violence with verbal violence, even if the two parties are on equal footing, which in a witness/athiest showdown, hopefully wouldn't be the case.So? The logic is the same; the person does something bad to me, and if I do the same thing back to him, then I'm the asshole according to you.
I don't recall you saying that a person who does that is "slightly" an asshole. You said it was immoral, ie- "not right" to do so. I'm saying that it is perfectly justifiable to yell at someone who won't leave you alone, or perhaps even spray them with water.This is semantics. I say their slightly an asshole, and you say he isn't sufficiently wonderful.
You said I supported the shotgun incident, then you backed down while trying to pretend it was a strawman distortion to ever say you'd suggested that in the first place. Your own quotes prove the point....
ME: What the hell? I'm talking about kangaroo boy. You're presumably defending his behavior.
YOU: Bullshit. Your presumptions are not my problem. Did I ever say it was OK to shove a shotgun in someone's face for coming to your door? Answer yes or no, please.
ME: No, you excluded that behavior explicitly in an earlier part of the discussion, and your claiming that I claimed your support went that far is distortion and grandstanding.
Now, you tell me. Did I say you supported the shot gun incident, or did I say you supported the water hose incident?
Oh, so sorry that I call you a liar for lying. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR VERTIGO'S FUCKING BEHAVIOUR. I HAVE NOT NAMED HIM BY NAME IN ANY OF THE SECTIONS YOU QUOTED, NOR DID I STATE APPROVAL FOR THIS HIGH-PRESSURE QUOTE YOU FOUND. Get it now? Or would you like to whine yet again that I'm a liar for not fessing up to supporting something for which I never stated support? Or do you think that anybody who doesn't like JWs must be in a big gang and support each other by default, so I must specifically EXCLUDE him from any comments I make otherwise I must be supporting his actions? When I say "perhaps the garden hose", that does not mean "I support whatever Vertigo did with a garden hose". Is that clear enough for you?And here is the kicker. This is what the kangaroo fucker said!!!Haha! That was hilarious! What a funny guy. And notice how I exaggerated his position of lying in wait and using a high pressure attachment! No, wait, I didn't. Goddammit Mike, pull your head out of your ass and quit trying to call me a liar. It is *not* cool.Get this...they came back again! This time, I was ready for them. When they knocked on the door, I jumped out from behind the house and hosed them down from head to toe with ice cold water. (using the high pressure nozzle of course) The look on their faces was priceless!
The part where you answer the question about people never having heard of the JWs by talking about how many people "know what they think and believe". As I said, bait and switch.Lets have another history lesson:
ME: I'm telling you right now that a bigger percentage than you know don't know who or what JW's are. I would know, cause I've spent more of life than I'd like to admit talking to people about this very subject. And of those that do, a vanishingly small percentage know what they think and believe.
Where did I fudge and evade?
Ah, I see. So I've gotten "nasty" for accusing you of lying, but when you accuse me of lying, you're just being helpful. Gotcha.Three accusations of dishonesty, three strikes, you're out. You say I take this personal, and I freely admit I do take people bragging about turning a high pressure hose on someone that could just as easily be the woman I love personally, but you've just gotten nasty.
I did no such thing. That fact that you have been presented with the evidence in straight forward fashion and chronological order and still refuse to admit you are wrong is mind boggling to me. You're doing the internet equivalent of sputtering and blustering.You said I supported the shotgun incident, then you backed down while trying to pretend it was a strawman distortion to ever say you'd suggested that in the first place. Your own quotes prove the point.
Oh, and I so accept your half ass non-apology. I didn't lie, have never lied, and will never lie to win an argument. I don't have a problem either conceeding or apologizing. Please note that I have not accused you of lying either.Oh, so sorry that I call you a liar for lying.
Weak. Vertigo just happens to link a thread where he does just that, and then you just happen to mention that perhaps bringing out the hose isn't so bad, and you berate me for getting the wrong idea.I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR VERTIGO'S FUCKING BEHAVIOUR. I HAVE NOT NAMED HIM BY NAME IN ANY OF THE SECTIONS YOU QUOTED, NOR DID I STATE APPROVAL FOR THIS HIGH-PRESSURE QUOTE YOU FOUND.
I have never called you a liar, mike, you are the one doing it to me, which is completely unwarranted and un-called for.Get it now? Or would you like to whine yet again that I'm a liar for not fessing up to supporting something for which I never stated support?
It is now, but the sequence of events made certainly made it seem that way. Then your bizarre grandstanding over the issue made it all the more confusing. Regardless, now that we *are* on the same page, it is shameful to excuse spraying someone with an ordinary garden hose over a verbal confrontation that one party doesn't even know they are having.Or do you think that anybody who doesn't like JWs must be in a big gang and support each other by default, so I must specifically EXCLUDE him from any comments I make otherwise I must be supporting his actions? When I say "perhaps the garden hose", that does not mean "I support whatever Vertigo did with a garden hose". Is that clear enough for you?
That's crazy. I said there were a certain percentage of people who never heard of JW's, and ON TOP OF THAT a greater percentage that don't know what they believe. That's adding additional information, not qualifying or equivocating. The question you refer to, which I answered straight forwardly, came AFTER the statement above, which is what you're using when you say I'm equivocating.The part where you answer the question about people never having heard of the JWs by talking about how many people "know what they think and believe". As I said, bait and switch.
Where did I accuse you of lying? I said I found it funny that when I accuse you of calling me a liar (which you did) you turned immediately around and for some bizzare reason accused me of accusing you a liar. You can't fucking remember any sequence to any statements, and when you do remember, you remember them wrong. Are you speed reading this on your coffee break or something?Ah, I see. So I've gotten "nasty" for accusing you of lying, but when you accuse me of lying, you're just being helpful. Gotcha.
It's not a matter of safety; it's a matter of your argument that the retaliator is an asshole.aronkerkhof wrote:I reject your assertion that the level of tit-for-tat is irrelevant. I can safely ignore strangers that call me an asshole or say their imaginary god is going to kill me or better yet a person who I think thinks their imaginary god is going to kill me, regardless of what they actually think. Ignoring a stranger punching me in the face is a different matter, which is why it is lunacy to try to trap me into agreeing with your statement.
Speak for yourself; you chose to grossly exaggerate "name-calling and perhaps the hose" into "it's OK to blast someone right in the face and try to injure him", and then you claim that you never, ever tried to misrepresent my statements.I did no such thing. That fact that you have been presented with the evidence in straight forward fashion and chronological order and still refuse to admit you are wrong is mind boggling to me. You're doing the internet equivalent of sputtering and blustering.
Bullshit sophistry. I am not responsible for every fucking thing said on a thread where I participate. I hadn't even read that particular post, or seen it until you quoted it. Putting words in my mouth because you choose to draw a fallacious connection between something I said and something someone else said just because we both used the word "garden hose" is ridiculous, whether you admit it or not. And accusing your opponent of "sputtering and blustering" because he won't take this bullshit lying down is just totally dishonest.Weak. Vertigo just happens to link a thread where he does just that, and then you just happen to mention that perhaps bringing out the hose isn't so bad, and you berate me for getting the wrong idea.I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR VERTIGO'S FUCKING BEHAVIOUR. I HAVE NOT NAMED HIM BY NAME IN ANY OF THE SECTIONS YOU QUOTED, NOR DID I STATE APPROVAL FOR THIS HIGH-PRESSURE QUOTE YOU FOUND.
You mean the part where you said I supported everything he did except for pulling out the gun? Sorry, but I never said even that, since I didn't even bother reading exactly what he claimed to do. I can't believe you are claiming that your own fallacious association of my words with his is somehow my fault.I tried to extend that olive branch, and admit that I might have confused Vertigo's injection into the thread with the topic at hand three replies ago, and you smacked it away.
Vertigo also claims to have put a shotgun in their faces, and you have been loudly doubting his honesty about his own claims up till now, when suddenly his behaviour is perfectly reasonable and not "crazy" at all. Don't bullshit me.Imagine that, a real, honest to god offer of reconcilliation if I got the wrong idea. Yet you went on and on like I was crazy to think that anyone would put on a pressure nozzle to spray witnesses, going so far as to employ scare quotes around "water focusing attachment" like they don't sell them for 99 cents at Home Depot and to crow "Oh, no! Here comes the witnesses! Grab the high pressure spraying hose!" in sarcastic fashion when that is precisely what Vertigo did.
You put Vertigo's words in my mouth with no justification except for your OWN misinterpretation, and you blame me for it when I call you on it. If I don't call that a lie, what should I call it?I have never called you a liar, mike, you are the one doing it to me, which is completely unwarranted and un-called for.
I already have. See your unapologetic, persistent attempts to put Vertigo's words in my mouth. You even dismissed my reminder that I never stated support for his actions as "weak", mumbling that I should have worked harder to keep YOU from misinterpreting things....
Find the quote where I either outright called you a liar or did so by implication. Or don't.
Yeah, right.At this point I'm comfortable with the thread speaking for itself, so whatever.
You know, a long, long time ago, back in the stone age, people who wanted to spray stuff with their regular, non-high-tech enhanced, garden hoses, would partially cover the end of the hose with their fingers. Maybe it's one of that "lost tech" knowledge and wisdom that has been forgotten due to ages of massive computer space-age hose upgrading.aronkerkhof wrote:Somebody says they sprayed someone with a garden hose I don't get the picture of them holding the hose over their head, letting the water just kind of drip on them. The word "sprays" conveys that meaning.
Coming up next: "Aronkerhof, himself and Irene"aronkerkhof wrote:Perhaps your definition of asshole is different from mine. That is a distinct possibility, which I'll get to in my conclusion. The essence is that acting like a jerk in response to someone elses acting like a jerk is still... acting like a jerk. You might have an excuse to do so, but that doesn't change the objective fact.