Posted by Thinker on November 27, 2010 at 20:20:40
In Reply to: Re: Elementary, my dear Watson! posted by Thinker on November 27, 2010 at 19:59:49:
Let's cut through the word "neutral" and ask "neutral for whom?"
If one goes into a situation without an opinion, then finds out ten things about it and opines that eight of these things point to it being a bad situation, a truly neutral person should say, "as someone without preconceived notions, I've given it a chance and looked at it, and I've come away deciding there's more bad than good."
What false neutrals do is throw out six of the bad points so that there are just four points left--two good and two bad--so that he or she can then play up a false neutrality of having no opinion for or against the situation. This is exactly what these so-called neutral academics have done--ignored the prevalent input and testimony of those who can prove The Family International to be seriously bad, just so they can publish a "balanced," neither-pro-nor-con opinion.
Tons of second generationers have tried to contact these so-called neutrals to testify of the abuse they suffered. They have been sidelined and ignored, their statements conveniently categorized as not being "neutral," and they've been called things like "disgruntled" or "having an agena." Hmmm, I wonder why kids who grew up with such abuse and failure of a religious movement might have an agenda!