Another Circular Circular.

[Tcg]

.

Apparently due to the pandemic, the JWs have taken to mailing out their circulars rather than knocking on doors and handing them out personally or leaving them in mailboxes if they get no answer. The latest I've gotten in the mail asks, "How do you view the future?" As is often the case, the first part refers to the Bible to answer the question on the cover and the second part purports to answer the question, "Can we really believe what the Bible says?" Oddly the second part contains a total of eight biblical references to support the claim that one can.

Does it make logical sense to accept the verses supporting the Bible as evidence the Bible should be believed?

Do some who receive this circular circular not notice its circular nature?


Tcg

[brunumb]

Similarly, the sidewalk is not your private property, and they should be allowed to be there and do as they wish.

Perhaps they could stand there and pray to Jehovah for divine guidance as to whether they should proceed to the front door or not. Surely Jehovah would never mislead them and it would be in his interests to actually participate in the witnessing.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #238]

WHY ARE WE HOLLERING IN BOLD?

Because it is louder than normal hollering and can have the effect of drowning out rational argument....?

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #238]

"Your honor, I was fixing to run me a bath, when I heard Satan himself come aknocking."

"Ooh, strawberry tonight!"

Don't it just beat all that'n there'd take all that time to research the ramifications of showing up nekkid at the door, took all that time to put it in a post with the twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles, and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was.

All just to support their -ahem- God given right to bother you in your home, unless you take the effort, and expense, to put you up a sign telling em to go straight to Hell with their busy body ways.

Religion. Not even once.

You hit on an interesting argument to contrast the threat of being complained about to the authorities there Joey.

JayDubs are keen to tell us just how not into the system of things they are. Why they don't even vote, so what is the law of secularists to them, that they should have them applied through complaining about how offensive your genitalia are to their eyes...when they took the risk to knock on your door without invitation in the first place.

Surely they would just see the funny side and make a mental note not to bother you again?

You'd think so, given all the blah they say about 'the system of things', but then one wonders if that would be the case, since we have one member of the JWO citing rules and regulations as part of her argument...Who told them you were naked and that your nakedness was offensive?

Mind boggles...at the forked tongues of Christian say-so's.

Still - is it really worth the risk [and ice-cream - do they make you eat peas in the home?] to allow someone's to annoy you that much that you would be willing to be removed from the very home they are trespassing upon?

[Tcg]

Similarly, the sidewalk is not your private property, and they should be allowed to be there and do as they wish.

Perhaps they could stand there and pray to Jehovah for divine guidance as to whether they should proceed to the front door or not. Surely Jehovah would never mislead them and it would be in his interests to actually participate in the witnessing.

It would also, presumably speed up the search for the marks ready to accept unsupportable claims. Why waste time talking to all those folks who see the fallacious nature of the argument/s being presented when Jehovah could lead them directly to those who are willing to accept it/them. The added benefit would be that those of us who aren't could go about enjoying our time at home absent the rude interruptions. We'd benefit and JWs would benefit assuming they get credit of some sort for finding the gullible. Of course, perhaps there is no Jehovah to aid in the search.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

Still - is it really worth the risk [and ice-cream - do they make you eat peas in the home?] to allow someone's to annoy you that much that you would be willing to be removed from the very home they are trespassing upon?

Being a very impulsive person, I reckon I'd be more apt to do it than not. When in the moment, I tend not to think of the ramifications.

Of course, the gate at the drive prevents unwanted guests. But should they get the code, the dogs are a further deterrent. I'm just not good with strangers.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #245]

Of course, the gate at the drive prevents unwanted guests. But should they get the code, the dogs are a further deterrent. I'm just not good with strangers.

Well there ya go. Chances are the JayDubs and other strangers have never actually ventured onto your property. You're fortress is secure.

[Purple Knight]

It seems we are agreeing that people can be disrespectful when they call on someone for a purpose that the callee wants no part of.

I do, but that requires interaction to discover, which is an unfortunate reality we must deal with, and that's is why I'm on the side of what I very well admit is a compromise with the ideal, rather than the ideal itself.

Ideally nobody bothers anybody, everybody respects privacy, but in an imperfect world where people are going to sometimes want to do things that bother others for any number of reasons, I would rather sometimes be bothered than live my life in a straitjacket because of what might bother others. And I think this is only realistically a problem when you can't opt out, as it seems to be for phone solicitations. We've all spent more effort talking about this now than it would be to scrawl "No Solicitors" on a piece of paper and stick it in a visible place on our windows.

Nope, still missing my point. It's not the physical touching of my door.

That's fine, but you've lost any high ground to argue from private property, then. This is actually my bad assuming you were, because I'm coming from a position of having argued something very very VERY similar to death. This was a gaggle of free-market, Anarcho-Capitalist libertarians telling me that they have the right to sell bottles of poison with labels that say green beans ("the free market will take care of that; if a company does that then it won't last long") but that I can't have chickens on my property because they don't want to see them or smell them. Because, you see, I can just not buy the green beans, I can do better research as to who is trustworthy as a seller of green beans, but senses can be aggressed against and I must get permission before exposing someone to a stimulus to any sense.

It's the intrusion on my privacy. Whether they knock on my door, yell from the sidewalk, or overfly my house with a helicopter and use a bull horn, the result is the same. They have taken a positive decision to interrupt me on my private property. That is the problem. They are doing this positive interruption at their leisure, not mine. In other words, they hold all responsibility for taking this positive action.

At very least, trying to assess what is allowed by what is deliberate is a muddy affair, because for all JW knows, you're sitting there waiting for the chance at company, and he can't know you're not until you interact and make that clear. He can't know he's interrupting and bothering you.

Is it legal? Sure. Should a respectful person wanting to discuss religion with me do it? No!

I agree, but I say to you the same thing I say to JW.

SHOULD I EXPOSE MY GENITALS TO UNINVITED STRANGERS THAT KNOCK AT MY DOOR?

Probably not. Probably you shouldn't. But we're now in the territory of things people are less likely to want but might want, things that don't harm people, but that perhaps people shouldn't do because they might be (or even probably will be) considered rude. My position is still that this category of things should be legal, leaving the two parties to work out whether they want to respect each other's wishes, pet peeves, and demands... or not.

(Now, if done as part of paedophilia, then that's a horse of another colour. We have to compromise somewhat with the freedoms we ought to have because of children, since mere exposure to things can harm their fragile minds. Another compromise with the ideal, rather than the ideal itself, which is that people should be allowed to be naked in their own homes.)

[JoeyKnothead]

Looks like JehovahsWitness won't come knocking round here no more.

Is that what irony is?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #245]

Of course, the gate at the drive prevents unwanted guests. But should they get the code, the dogs are a further deterrent. I'm just not good with strangers.

Well there ya go. Chances are the JayDubs and other strangers have never actually ventured onto your property. You're fortress is secure.

Just cause they may have never come on my property yet doesn't mean they never will.

All it would take is for the gate to fail to close, then I risk some religious busy body thinking their lies trump my privacy.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #245]

Of course, the gate at the drive prevents unwanted guests. But should they get the code, the dogs are a further deterrent. I'm just not good with strangers.

Well there ya go. Chances are the JayDubs and other strangers have never actually ventured onto your property. You're fortress is secure.

Just cause they may have never come on my property yet doesn't mean they never will.

All it would take is for the gate to fail to close, then I risk some religious busy body thinking their lies trump my privacy.

I think there's 2 issues here at play:
1) people have been told lies for so long they believe it and want to 'share the good word' with others or
2) people 'get off' by forcing their beliefs onto others.

Both of these over-ride one's right to privacy, their right to live on their own property without be harassed and their right to live their life as they see fit.
They're like the story of lemmings over the cliff: they do what they're told to do, pure and simple.