Quote:
Originally Posted by djohnson
Exactly my point UntoHim: they went knowingly and willingly to hear Chen's babble and no doubt "amened" him after every other sentence.
OBW if I change my mind about something I changed my mind. For example: the communist tried to systematically indoctrinate Nee to denounce Christ. He would not change his mind about it even after 20 years of imprisonment. Some others in the same circumstances did. They recanted their faith in Christ. Ultimately it was the individual's personal choice even in those dire circumstances. Surely in a free society like those enjoyed in America, Canada, etc one cannot claim that someone else "controlled" them and "forced" them into certain behaviors. This is a cowardly and irresponsible claim. Even secular jurisprudence will not accept this as a legitimate defence.
|
Yes, if you change your mind, it is you that does the changing. And yes, if you have principles and someone causes you to make microscopic changes to those principles, it is you that does the changing. And if they manage to get you to make microscopic change after microscopic change until your principles no longer reflect anything like what they previously did, then you are still the one who changed your own principles. And if you are truly happy with your new principles relative to the old ones, then so be it.
So how do you deal with purely mental addictions? Are they not controlling? Maybe you have never been the type to become addicted to anything. But many people are. And under the right circumstances, almost all of us are.
There is at least one form of alcoholism that is not about physical addiction, but purely mental and emotional. Surely if it is just mental and/or emotional then anyone should be able to simply walk away from it. Right? If you say "right" then you are even more ignorant than your statement that making such a claim is "cowardly and irresponsible."
The depth of your ignorance is further established when you try to define control in terms of whether or not a court would allow it as a reasonable defense. Reasonable defenses are typically based upon established precedence and in this kind of thing, science. If you are certain that science would not back such a defense, and that some court might allow it to be considered, then you are stuck with the notion that nothing changes. In any case, whether or not something is true is not determined by its admissibility in court or whether it could be an allowed defense. Courts do not decide truth. They decide legality. For example, a gun found in an illegal search may be inadmissible in a trial that ultimately finds the party that is actually responsible for murder "not guilty" simply because the prosecutor was unable to sufficiently establish the link between the perpetrator and the crime. He is then legally free to leave unfettered, but he is still guilty of the crime. Laws do not regulate or determine truth.
And when you belittle by saying that claiming control is "cowardly and irresponsible" you are attempting to control this conversation. And unlike some who might back away and let the sound of authority sway them — sort of like so many of the LC membership does with respect to the words of Lee — I am not so easily swayed. It is almost as if you are trying to control this aspect of the conversation by claiming that it can't happen. "Master is tricksy!"
And the question that has been hovering for a couple of days now: Where does eliminating any consideration of any kind of control from this discussion take us? I have some possibilities. First, it makes all those who follow Lee and the LC out to simply be morons who willingly think and do stupid things. In fact, it simply makes everyone who ever was a part of the LC long enough to have intentionally stayed for some period out to have been that kind of moron, at least in the past, and therefore puts a question mark over their current judgment. Last, it leaves only the true outsiders — those who were never actually part of the LC even if they did attend a few times — as the only reasonable people on the forum.
Funny, the only such person that I have seen around here like that lately is you. Oh, I guess you knew that. You have already established that position without this new attack. You have already stated fairly straight-out that anyone who was ever an elder in the LC can never be trusted and will always be the enemy. You have suggested that people from within the LC cannot change it for the better. They should just disband and disappear.
It seems that you are more interested in an argument than in truth. "Management" may not ever ban you outright for this kind of stupid behavior, but if it persists, then some of us probably will on an individual basis. It should be quite an insult to find yourself in the same place as Steward on the other forum. Quite a few just got tired of her nonsense and turned her off.