Posted by Rick [Rick] on March 27, 1999 at 01:36:28 {FMFBt36Xyc2E7FuScD2cMWXgIYA54YD7Q}:
In Reply to: *******Moderator Code Confusion posted by COMF on March 26, 1999 at 20:36:51:
Here is was going to bed and caught this, thinking it was my last post for the evening, and here I feel compelled to respond.
M14:
"R# [x] Reason : your assertions about practicus are completely unproven, you presume to speak
for Jehovah in condemning him, repeated references to 'dishonesty' are slanderous because you have not produced nor has anyone else proof that any of
these things were known to be untrue or that there was any intent to deceive. Being
wrong is not the same as being dishonest."
Rick Interprets:
Examples:
(a) Ryan condemns John as dishonest. What happened is that John told investors the stock would go up, and it went down. Was John dishonest? Ryan claims that dishonesty means to be wrong.
John claims it was an honest mistake, but Ryan insists John is still dishonest, admitting he cannot read John's heart and therefore cannot prove it. Has Ryan slandered John by claiming his reason for the incorrect stock forecast was
dishonesty and not simply an honest mistake?
Answers: "Yes, slander occurred if John cannot prove that John was dishonest (dishonesty is a willful act); and John suffers the inability to read hearts in order to prove
this."
(OR)
Answer: "No, because the possibility exists John made an honest mistake in judgment in claiming the stock would go up; and Ryan cannot prove otherwise."
(b) Mary gives Janine a glass of lemonade by the pool on a hot day. Janine sips it, and suddenly drops the glass and slumps over. An autopsy reveals the lemonade was laced with cyanide. Was Mary responsible for placing the cyanide in the drink, or did she knowingly deliver the drink after another party who did this?
Answer: "Like unknowingly delivering information that is false to a householder, Mary is not responsible for Janine's death if no proof exists she laced the drink with cyanide or delivered it knowing it contained cyanide. Mary claims she left the drink on the counter to answer the door, and didn't know it had been tampered with. Without proof, Mary considered innocent. Further, no scriptural precedent holds that God would hold Mary accountable for unknowingly delivering poison to Janine, if God knows for a fact Mary didn't do this terrible deed even if she is falsely convicted of the crime. Accusing Mary of being guilty of this crime (rather than referring to 'alleged guilt') is slander, just as accusing others of knowing the information was false they delivered to householders in a magazine is slander if no proof of intent exists."
That's my two cents worth. I now read COMF's interpretation in amazement.
COMF Interprets:
"Do you understand what he's saying, Rick? He's saying that the WBTS has never lied, that it can't be proven that they lied, and that when I make reference to the lies, I'm going to be deleted. Is
that how you want it? You want a site about reform, where it is impossible to calmly and rationally discuss the fact that the Watchtower Society's publications and history are full of lies? A site where, when anyone makes reference to a
WBTS lie, he gets deleted?"
(a) Wrong, he did not say the Watchtower never lied; he implied they never willfully lied. We've debated this before, but is not knowing you're lying, still lying? If it is, then it's possible for the innocent to lie because we all -- at some point in our lives -- convey information to others that is false without realizing it.
(b) The last questions in your post don't address M14's complaint. It's not that exposing lies is wrong, or that exposing Watchtower lies is wrong, but it's claiming the Watchtower DELIBERATELY lies. This is unproven. Further, it's debatable whether it's accurate to claim that if someone conveys false information with full belief it is accurate, that they're "lying." Normally, a "lie" is thought of as something willful and possibly malicious, with hidden agendas and dishonest intent.
You're going to have to clearly separate your exposing false information in the Watchtower, versus implying they willfully disseminate lies.
Example: An encyclopedia from the early part of this century contains mostly false information, but did its authors "lie"? If you called them "liars" because it turns out, in retrospect, that their encyclopedia is wrong, is that a correct designation? Then why claim that the Society's publications are incorrect because the Watchtower lies? Why not simply state proven facts that said information is incorrect, and let the observer decide whether the reason is (a) willful deceit, or (b) similar to the situation with encyclopedias where every generation of encyclopedia author is going to be proven false by the next generation who have more accurate knowledge of the world.
Rick