Thanks Pipes, I think that sums up EXACTLY why we did foolish things.
oldies has tried to focus this thread on hitchhiking good or bad....That isn`t the point, we were forced to do that which was unwise in order to be in good standing with God.
All of those things forms of manipulation that you listed were used. The bad part is that the one and only God almighty was used as the threat...
I mean if you blew it spiritually and God couldn`t spit in your direction, or you were no longer under his umbrella of protection, if he got mad at you and decided to kill you for breaking your vow like he did with annanias n saphira....it wasn`t like you could go out and get ANOTHER God to love and protect you :(
I wonder how HE feels about being the weapon utilized to force people into unsafe behavior.
I wonder if he felt as bad as we did when we tearfully submitted to the orders of twi, some times heart broken. sometimes scared, some times just sick at heart at what we felt we had to do in order to prove our love to him.
Then when things went bad we turned to him and asked why? We were just trying to serve you :(
In heavy wind, the people-as always-were required to travel at unsafe speeds even for a normal truck plus trailer hitch, instead of going slow or waiting for less wind.
The driver himself could have gone slow and waited for less wind, and avoided the accident.
Because the driver didn't, and they crashed, you blame twi.
Golly, doesn't even the driver bear some responsibility here?
After all he's the one person who was in control of the truck, at that specific time.
Actually, I just recently read the thread in question now. As I recall, the writer didn't blame TWI or the driver - he said that the driver did the best he could.
OTOH - HE did blame twi for how they handled the injured, how they humiliated them by dismissing them and making them feel like they were somehow not worthy of the WC.
OM - I understand placing the blame on the true perpetrators of the crime - the rapists, the muggers, the devil, etc. BUT - TWI DOES HAVE A BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY. In a court of law the jury would be asked to consider "what a reasonable man would do," among other standards. In the instance of hitching, a reasonable NUMBER OF "REASONABLE" MEN should have looked for a different solution with lesser odds of harm.
You are fond of quoting the number of accidents associated with driving. Multiply that number by - ohhhh let's be conservative and say double - for hitching. Why? Well, because not only are there still people riding in cars, they are standing on roads and highways, getting into cars with strangers, traveling while tired and cold at all hours of the morning with no more than $10.00 in their pockets, (which, BTW, had to be returned upon returning to campus,) and sometimes sleeping on the side of the road from sheer exhaustion.
So these folks were still subjected to the "dangers" of driving, but with ADDED DANGERS!!!!! ADDED UNFAVORABLE ODDS! How was/is this acceptable? Vpw was always touting that the WC was God's elite. He called us "his kids" - yeah right.
You are simply not thinking here....maybe you are protecting an ideal and having to ignore the facts in order to do so.
The driver himself could have gone slow and waited for less wind, and avoided the accident.
Because the driver didn't, and they crashed, you blame twi.
Golly, doesn't even the driver bear some responsibility here?
After all he's the one person who was in control of the truck, at that specific time.
Correct.
The driver was in control of the truck, at that specific time.
Therefore, the ultimate decisions rested in his hands.
That makes him the final decision-maker in this process,
which means he bears some responsibility.
DUH.
That having been said, the driver was placed in a situation where all expectations were
placed on him to disregard all safety.
He was expected-by participants/passengers AND the powers-that-be
to exceed safe speeds and drive regardless of the circumstances.
Rather than take heed and exercise safe driving,
he was EXPECTED and TRAINED to ignore the situation and rely on
"believing" to "believe away" any problems.
In this situation, the time-constraints were so bad that-faced with the option
of disappointing the powers-that-be and doing paperwork while driving,
he felt the less-objectionable choice was to drive less safely.
Was that an incredibly poor decision? Obviously.
(For those with short attention spans and Oldiesman,
that means he's responsible for his decision.)
Why did he make such an incredibly poor decision?
He was TRAINED and EXPECTED to act in that fashion.
The program he was in was orchestrated to be as financially cheap as
possible, and to be as restrictive (time-and decisionwise) as possible.
For a program purported to train leaders, it had neither a leadership-training
portion nor chances to learn proper-decisionmaking.
Decisions included this one.
"You are in charge of getting these people to this location in this timeframe
using this vehicle. You are able to make all the decisions here-
so long as you operate within a too-narrow timeframe, and use only
this unsafe vehicle."
Some decisions. If the driver regarded even HALF the hazards,
he got into a LOT of trouble from the powers-that-be as soon as they got in,
and so would the people whose lives he regarded,
and BOTH would give him static.
He was not handed a written set of instructions specifying
"You are required to engage in this foolhardy act."
That notwithstanding, he was nevertheless
REQUIRED to engage in foolhardy behaviour.
This is actually an EXCELLENT example of that.
Actually, I just recently read the thread in question now. As I recall, the writer didn't blame TWI or the driver - he said that the driver did the best he could.
OTOH - HE did blame twi for how they handled the injured, how they humiliated them by dismissing them and making them feel like they were somehow not worthy of the WC.
OM - I understand placing the blame on the true perpetrators of the crime - the rapists, the muggers, the devil, etc. BUT - TWI DOES HAVE A BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY. In a court of law the jury would be asked to consider "what a reasonable man would do," among other standards. In the instance of hitching, a reasonable NUMBER OF "REASONABLE" MEN should have looked for a different solution with lesser odds of harm.
You are fond of quoting the number of accidents associated with driving. Multiply that number by - ohhhh let's be conservative and say double - for hitching. Why? Well, because not only are there still people riding in cars, they are standing on roads and highways, getting into cars with strangers, traveling while tired and cold at all hours of the morning with no more than $10.00 in their pockets, (which, BTW, had to be returned upon returning to campus,) and sometimes sleeping on the side of the road from sheer exhaustion.
So these folks were still subjected to the "dangers" of driving, but with ADDED DANGERS!!!!! ADDED UNFAVORABLE ODDS! How was/is this acceptable? Vpw was always touting that the WC was God's elite. He called us "his kids" - yeah right.
You are simply not thinking here....maybe you are protecting an ideal and having to ignore the facts in order to do so.
As far as hitching to LEAD is concerned...the excuse that it was to teach us to believe God was an afterthought. We were required to hitch because they didn't want to spend the dough to transport us there.
Money money money money money money money money money....THAT's what spoke to the black hearts of Vic and company. It's still speaking loud and clear to the pathetic "leaders" of TWI. Those in power today sold out a long time ago.
In the instance of hitching, a reasonable NUMBER OF "REASONABLE" MEN should have looked for a different solution with lesser odds of harm.
I disagree. The corps was about training participants to accomplish exploits and feats and sometimes, those feats were challenging and involved some harm.
Driving has harm.
Getting up at 5 in the morning and exercising has harm.
Hitching has harm.
Door to door witnessing has harm.
Speaking to people has harm.
Anything done out of the house has harm. Otherwise, gee, just stay home.
How far do you want to push the envelope?
The way corps was about pushing the envelope, and if folks who volunteered for it didn't know, golly, they should have known what was expected before volunteering.
If they didn't research their investment, knowing what was expected, they made a mistake.
And again, had twi chosen cars & trucks to transport folks to lead, and there was a crash, twi would get blamed anyway. The anti-twi folks would blame twi, not Greyhound.
That having been said, the driver was placed in a situation where all expectations were placed on him to disregard all safety.
So then your position is that twi wanted/expected the driver to disregard all safety, in that situation? That seems to be what you are alleging, specifically.
Have you interviewed the BOT and asked them if this is what they wanted/expected?
Or the cabinet, or corps director, at that time?
Where in corps or lead literature does it advise drivers to and from lead to disregard all safety while driving?
I think if you want to access that kind of specific blame, you must get very specific with your facts.
I disagree. The corps was about training participants to accomplish exploits and feats and sometimes, those feats were challenging and involved some harm.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
NO!
NO!
The Corps was "SUPPOSED" to be about training leaders and workers to go forth and lead God's people!
End of story!
We were there to get training. We were there to learn to lead God's people.
Exploits and feats!!!??? Where was that written? None of my literature said that?
Nobody told me that I'd have to leap tall buildings in a single bound....
BTW - where were those exploits and feats from LEADERSHIP when we did get hurt? Did vpw rush to anyone's side and pray for them? Did anyone get raised from the dead? NO! They got shown the door and told to not let it hit them on the a$$.
Is this how Jesus handled the woman caught in adultery? - I use that example because the shame she felt was at least as deep as those who "failed" to believe.
What about how he handled Peter? Petey failed numerous times by vpw's standards - but strangley enough Jesus didn't send him packing.
Did the BOT or corps ever have any corps policy that stated corps were asked/expected to drive in an unsafe way and "believe God would cover"?
I actually heard differently, from teachings, that one shouldn't expect God to protect you when you do that kind of stuff. It was referred to as "tempting God", and God doesn't cover that kind of stuff.
Do you remember the "reckless and hilarous" devil spirits in Athletes? Same deal.
But TWI doesn't get thanked for that...
But as I mentioned before, the anti-twi folks will blame twi whenever they can, at every opportunity, for everything that goes wrong in twi. It is always twi's fault.
Supposing that the people who made the initial decision to REQUIRE hitchhiking were not
aware of the dangers OF hitchhiking, that was a bad decision based on insufficient information.
They were unfit to lead, since they made decisions that others were required to follow
that placed them in risk.
Once that decision was put into action, and there were victims (people were killed and raped),
"you would have to be stupider than stupid" (to use vpw's saying)
to NOT expect it to happen AGAIN.
At that point (if not much sooner), and proper leader of ANY kind would have said
"we're exposing our people to unnecessary risk of death and rape.
Let's replace this with something that does NOT do that."
Oldies replied
Nothing does not do that, except staying home.
Which means Oldies can't possibly imagine a program where
"unnecessary risk of death and rape"
can be replaced with something that does NOT have
"unnecessary risk of death or rape."
That's easy.
Put them in a vehicle.
Now, the risks of them getting in a vehicle with someone who will
kill or rape them has been reduced from "unnecessary risk"
to "acceptable risk". (If one seemingly-sane corps person goes
insane and rapes and kills the others in the car, you can't control
for that beyond screening the applicants. Thus, that is an
"acceptable risk." People take "acceptable risks" every day.)
How about the risks of people hit by vehicles?
Remove the unnecessary risk by putting them in a vehicle.
Now, if something hits them,
they're surrounded by detroit steel and a seatbelt.
Even cheap cars have seatbelts and a body.
Those are 2 layers of protection the hitchhiker lacks.
That's why most Christian organizations that have "training
programs" DON'T have "body counts."
They can't affect ALL risks, but they can remove
"unnecessary risk"-so they do.
Even the heathens and publicans do that without difficulty.
(Apologies to any heathens and publicans out there.)
Ok, where does the money for the vehicles come from?
(Someone already outlined a BETTER plan that included that
on this thread-and they did it offhand, without a program.)
That's easy-the tens of thousands a year that was paid for each
participant. They were housed in little dorms and fed
bottom-of-the-budget foods like familia, millet and broccoli,
and borscht. Even prisons feed better than that, last I heard.
So, there was LOTS of money for NECESSARY expenses.
Unless you were determined to make as big a FINANCIAL profit
off the program as possible. The operating costs of vehicles were
well within the income FOR the program.
As for "well, they didn't have the money when they STARTED
the LEAD program",
I simply say
"Don't run ANY program until you have the CAPACITY to run it."
And if they didn't know that-which they didn't-
I say they have no business PRETENDING to run a program
and letting the participants pay the price.
And again, had twi chosen cars & trucks to transport folks to lead, and there was a crash, twi would get blamed anyway. The anti-twi folks would blame twi, not Greyhound.
Again, doesn't anyone else get tired of Oldiesman inventing this complaint that
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."
Those are "acceptable risks."
Oldiesman's intentional ignorance of the concept of "unacceptable risk" is sad, but characteristic.
Since we've covered it in detail ALREADY on this page, and preceeding pages, repeatedly,
As far as hitching to LEAD is concerned...the excuse that it was to teach us to believe God was an afterthought. We were required to hitch because they didn't want to spend the dough to transport us there.
Tonto, let's say that's true, and twi didn't want to spend the loot to get you there.
So?
Had twi spent the loot, to get you there, and something bad happened in transporting folks there with the loot they spent, they'd get blamed anyway.
Don't ya get it yet?
(Some folks do, I've gotten some emails so I know some folks do get what I'm saying.)
Did the BOT or corps ever have any corps policy that stated corps were asked/expected to drive in an unsafe way and "believe God would cover"?
I actually heard differently, from teachings, that one shouldn't expect God to protect you when you do that kind of stuff. It was referred to as "tempting God", and God doesn't cover that kind of stuff.
First - go back and re-read that thread. The driver was surprised by the wind. He did try to control the truck.
Second, Now you want to talk about "tempting God???""!!!!! Oh but putting up to sixty (!) young folks on the highway at intervals wasn't tempting God? You know - I was dropped off with a partner in a bridge - not a smart idea!
You're just not right - you're just not right at all.
And you'll deny to your last breath that TWI was culpable for anything negatively that happened to some...
Tell me this OM... how would you react to this scenario?
YOU have a company that teaches leadership classes. Folks come to your campus from all over the country to take your courses. One of these courses is similar to 'Outward Bound' and helps folks overcome doubts about their abilities, helps them gain confidence, builds leadership! This course is part of the curriculam yet is located hundreds of miles from campus. YOU REQUIRE them to hitch hike to and from this class. Now even if you have no idea or thought that hitching is perilous you send them to the class. On the way to the class ONE person is raped or ONE person is killed (choose either, but only one occurrance).
You would be ruined and broke because IN COURT you would be found liable for having put those folks in that predicament. It doesn't matter that it never happened before, it doesn't matter that you didn't know that hitching was perilous. YOU would be found responsible of negligence... if not in whole, at least in part.
Now, take that to the next level... over the course of time, while YOUR STUDENTS were hitching to and from the class, there had been rapes, a student was killed, and others had many harms befall them. YOU would be found GUILTY OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE in court as well as losing all you own.
The same is true of TWI, whether you believe it or not. They are fortunate that the statute of limitations has expired...
I don't blame TWI for everything that happened as you so wonderfully like to throw out there as you paint with your broad brush of denial... I blame them for what they were responsible for... it just happens that there's a whole lot that they were responsible for...
So then your position is that twi wanted/expected the driver to disregard all safety, in that situation? That seems to be what you are alleging, specifically.
NO EXCEPTIONS WERE EVER MADE FOR "CIRCUMSTANCES".
And even approaching the subject left one open for criticism for "lack of believing."
The driver WAS expected to make it on time and pay NO ATTENTION to
safety considerations which made this an impractical goal.
Pretending it wasn't does not change that, and does not speak well of your
ability to view what DID happen fairly.
Have you interviewed the BOT and asked them if this is what they wanted/expected?
Or the cabinet, or corps director, at that time?
"Dear sirs:
I understand that Believer X was subjected to a face-melting session when he
drove slowly and stopped due to inclement weather returning from LEAD.
The arbitrary return time was not kept due to his concern for the safety of
the passengers. Was he expected to disregard all safety in this situation?"
"Dear peon:
In the situation you speak, the considerations were concerning the failure
to believe God, and the failure to maintain commitments, of Believer X.
This situation has been dealt with to our satisfaction, and will no longer
be entertained.
However, we are concerned about your lack of faith in our ability to
administer our program. Have you taken it to God in prayer?
Your lack of faith in your leadership is disconcerting.
If you have any further doubts and misgivings, please take them
directly to your twig or branch coordinator rather than stepping outside
channels to contact us."
Where in corps or lead literature does it advise drivers to and from lead to disregard all safety while driving?
It's one paragraph down from
"Your 'Birth to the Corps' papers will be used as determinants to see if you're
ready to join an elite cadre who engage in casual sex,
and your suitability as a sex object for vpw to 'utilize'."
Read the fine print.
I think if you want to access that kind of specific blame, you must get very specific with your facts.
I think any reasonable person can see that this sentence has nothing to do
with your motivations. We've already seen this was the PRACTICE.
Did the BOT or corps ever have any corps policy that stated corps were asked/expected to drive in an unsafe way and "believe God would cover"?
umm... we have an example of that when they expected the lead truck to be used to haul humans, all (except those covering for TWI) acknowledge this.
I actually heard differently, from teachings, that one shouldn't expect God to protect you when you do that kind of stuff. It was referred to as "tempting God", and God doesn't cover that kind of stuff.
umm... I did to... but then again, they set themselves above and before God. All (except those covering for TWI) acknowledge this.
Do you remember the "reckless and hilarous" devil spirits in Athletes? Same deal.
But TWI doesn't get thanked for that...
They should be "thanked" for putting on a third rate play? The main point of which was to exalt and glorify the leader of TWI while giving him access to more women to molest? Most all (except those covering for TWI) acknowledge this.
But as I mentioned before, the anti-twi folks will blame twi whenever they can, at every opportunity, for everything that goes wrong in twi. It is always twi's fault.
umm... wouldn't it be TWI's fault if it was done at the direction of TWI? All (except those covering for TWI) acknowledge this.
The corps was about training participants to accomplish exploits and feats and sometimes, those feats were challenging and involved some harm.
(snip)
The way corps was about pushing the envelope, and if folks who volunteered for it didn't know, golly, they should have known what was expected before volunteering.
If they didn't research their investment, knowing what was expected, they made a mistake.
As someone asked recently,
where in the corps literature is there an explanation of "accomplish exploits and feats"-
or any reference to them at all, for that matter?
Or "pushing the envelope?"
We've had plenty of direct testimony of the old "bait-and-switch" and how expectations
of the corps changed once they were on grounds, or without warning WHILE on
grounds, and peer pressure used to enforce the new "policies"
(which were STILL not put in writing.)
And you'll deny to your last breath that TWI was culpable for anything negatively that happened to some...
Tell me this OM... how would you react to this scenario?
YOU have a company that teaches leadership classes. Folks come to your campus from all over the country to take your courses. One of these courses is similar to 'Outward Bound' and helps folks overcome doubts about their abilities, helps them gain confidence, builds leadership! This course is part of the curriculam yet is located hundreds of miles from campus. YOU REQUIRE them to hitch hike to and from this class. Now even if you have no idea or thought that hitching is perilous you send them to the class. On the way to the class ONE person is raped or ONE person is killed (choose either, but only one occurrance).
You would be ruined and broke because IN COURT you would be found liable for having put those folks in that predicament. It doesn't matter that it never happened before, it doesn't matter that you didn't know that hitching was perilous. YOU would be found responsible of negligence... if not in whole, at least in part.
Now, take that to the next level... over the course of time, while YOUR STUDENTS were hitching to and from the class, there had been rapes, a student was killed, and others had many harms befall them. YOU would be found GUILTY OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE in court as well as losing all you own.
The same is true of TWI, whether you believe it or not. They are fortunate that the statute of limitations has expired...
I don't blame TWI for everything that happened as you so wonderfully like to throw out there as you paint with your broad brush of denial... I blame them for what they were responsible for... it just happens that there's a whole lot that they were responsible for...
Tonto, let's say that's true, and twi didn't want to spend the loot to get you there.
So?
Had twi spent the loot, to get you there, and something bad happened in transporting folks there with the loot they spent, they'd get blamed anyway.
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."
(Some folks do, I've gotten some emails so I know some folks do get what I'm saying.)
Give WTH, Allan and Mike a hug for us next time you reply to them.
There would be some that would blame twi no matter what -
This is a recurring theme with you for dismissing a lot of wrong on their part.
This statement can not be used because there are too many factors, too broad a set of possible circumstances. Because:
IF twi had decided to used cars - some different scenarios could occur:
1. Twi drove corps to and from LEAD BUT in unsafe vehicles, or with unreasonable time frames requiring unsafe driving practices.
2. TWI used quality cars and gave drivers ample time to get there but didn't check driving records.
3.TWI used quality cars, quality drivers, and gave ample time and money to get to LEAD and back safely.
Now, in the last two scenarios, because at least some care was taken and shown for the LEAD students, I would doubt highly that we would find ourselves arguing on this topic. Then again, if this kind of care was shown it would be a reflection of care for the individual in other areas of the ministry - then we might not even have a forum at all.
BTW -the time allowed to get to a location? - DOUBLE the normal driving time. That means that TWI recognized that the Corps would be on the roads much longer than it would take to just drive. How's that for increased odds of danger...????
Give WTH, Allan and Mike a hug for us next time you reply to them.
ROFLMFAOPIMP!!!
Was WC training set up to be like the training the Marines go through? How many of them are killed, abused, assaulted, driven to suicide and having to pay for their own training while being "encouraged to push the edge of the envelope"?
When there HAVE been casualties during training who has been faulted? The soldiers for riding in a helicopter that has missed an inspection? The soldier who neglegently fired a rifle that was loaded with flawed ammo? The soldier who drove the Hummer that blew a tire? :unsure:
They sure didn't mind spending the money to send the plane down with el Cee on it did they? Could've saved themselves a lot of trouble if they'd thought it through... but actual cognizent thinking took second place...
Too bad... could've saved a lot of people a lot of grief...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
53
44
23
Popular Days
Aug 1
66
Aug 2
64
Aug 3
57
Jul 27
33
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 20 posts
oldiesman 53 posts
WordWolf 44 posts
doojable 23 posts
Popular Days
Aug 1 2006
66 posts
Aug 2 2006
64 posts
Aug 3 2006
57 posts
Jul 27 2006
33 posts
Popular Posts
rascal
Rhino posted on the roa thread about driving while exhausted putting himself, his passenger and other drivers at serious risk in order to get to roa (wish I knew how to cut and cross post) Here's th
outandabout
If we're not supposed to use our "five senses", why did God give them to us?
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For those who missed the previous discussion,
my position has ALWAYS been-whether in twi or out-
that those administering ANY program of ANY kind are responsible for minimizing the
risks connected with that program.
In plain English, what does that mean regarding transport?
That means you find a relatively risk-free method of transporting people from
one place to another. Simple.
Need to get people from one place to another?
You put them on a plane that's passed government certification,
a train that's done the same,
a bus that's done the same,
or a car that's done the same.
One option is to use commercially-available transport-
like putting them all on a Greyhound bus.
(Greyhound has all their buses and drivers certified with the government, etc.)
Another option is to arrange your own of any of the above.
You can get your OWN bus, make sure it can pass government inspection,
then have it inspected. Then get a driver certified for buses-or train him
and certify him. Then you have a bus you can put people on and transport
them. You can also do this with a passenger van, or cars and a van or
truck accompanying with the luggage.
This is not hard for most sane Americans to see.
Even an uncertified bus-which is illegal- would provide obvious protection
against the most immediate dangers.
What did twi do? It put people in the back of a truck-which, of course,
was NOT fitted with any kind of security for people or anything else-
then added a trailer behind the truck.
In heavy wind, the people-as always-were required to travel at unsafe
speeds even for a normal truck plus trailer hitch,
instead of going slow or waiting for less wind.
How were they supposed to stay uninjured?
"Their believing was supposed to protect them!"
Well, the truck was flipped over, and the people inside the cargo area
received horrible injuries.
In this, I blamed twi.
They REQUIRED people to travel from place to place under UNSAFE conditions
at UNSAFE speeds in UNSAFE transport.
Would a normal, sane American blame them for the same?
I'll let the normal, sane Americans answer that for themselves.
At least one person has said that transporting people in the truckbed of a
truck was considered perfectly normal in that place and time.
If true, it makes this no less safe-and I seriously would be surprised
if it was habitual for most people to SPEED with them-
even without winds or a trailer hitch.
(And if they were all insane, that does not excuse them for "trying to
kill the people in the back." Try that in court and see how the judge
interprets that one.)
So, in that instance,
twi REQUIRED FOOLHARDY BEHAVIOUR.
Hm.
This WAS relevant to the discussion.
MORE foolhardy behaviour twi required.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The driver himself could have gone slow and waited for less wind, and avoided the accident.
Because the driver didn't, and they crashed, you blame twi.
Golly, doesn't even the driver bear some responsibility here?
After all he's the one person who was in control of the truck, at that specific time.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Actually, I just recently read the thread in question now. As I recall, the writer didn't blame TWI or the driver - he said that the driver did the best he could.
OTOH - HE did blame twi for how they handled the injured, how they humiliated them by dismissing them and making them feel like they were somehow not worthy of the WC.
OM - I understand placing the blame on the true perpetrators of the crime - the rapists, the muggers, the devil, etc. BUT - TWI DOES HAVE A BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY. In a court of law the jury would be asked to consider "what a reasonable man would do," among other standards. In the instance of hitching, a reasonable NUMBER OF "REASONABLE" MEN should have looked for a different solution with lesser odds of harm.
You are fond of quoting the number of accidents associated with driving. Multiply that number by - ohhhh let's be conservative and say double - for hitching. Why? Well, because not only are there still people riding in cars, they are standing on roads and highways, getting into cars with strangers, traveling while tired and cold at all hours of the morning with no more than $10.00 in their pockets, (which, BTW, had to be returned upon returning to campus,) and sometimes sleeping on the side of the road from sheer exhaustion.
So these folks were still subjected to the "dangers" of driving, but with ADDED DANGERS!!!!! ADDED UNFAVORABLE ODDS! How was/is this acceptable? Vpw was always touting that the WC was God's elite. He called us "his kids" - yeah right.
You are simply not thinking here....maybe you are protecting an ideal and having to ignore the facts in order to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Correct.
The driver was in control of the truck, at that specific time.
Therefore, the ultimate decisions rested in his hands.
That makes him the final decision-maker in this process,
which means he bears some responsibility.
DUH.
That having been said, the driver was placed in a situation where all expectations were
placed on him to disregard all safety.
He was expected-by participants/passengers AND the powers-that-be
to exceed safe speeds and drive regardless of the circumstances.
Rather than take heed and exercise safe driving,
he was EXPECTED and TRAINED to ignore the situation and rely on
"believing" to "believe away" any problems.
In this situation, the time-constraints were so bad that-faced with the option
of disappointing the powers-that-be and doing paperwork while driving,
he felt the less-objectionable choice was to drive less safely.
Was that an incredibly poor decision? Obviously.
(For those with short attention spans and Oldiesman,
that means he's responsible for his decision.)
Why did he make such an incredibly poor decision?
He was TRAINED and EXPECTED to act in that fashion.
The program he was in was orchestrated to be as financially cheap as
possible, and to be as restrictive (time-and decisionwise) as possible.
For a program purported to train leaders, it had neither a leadership-training
portion nor chances to learn proper-decisionmaking.
Decisions included this one.
"You are in charge of getting these people to this location in this timeframe
using this vehicle. You are able to make all the decisions here-
so long as you operate within a too-narrow timeframe, and use only
this unsafe vehicle."
Some decisions. If the driver regarded even HALF the hazards,
he got into a LOT of trouble from the powers-that-be as soon as they got in,
and so would the people whose lives he regarded,
and BOTH would give him static.
He was not handed a written set of instructions specifying
"You are required to engage in this foolhardy act."
That notwithstanding, he was nevertheless
REQUIRED to engage in foolhardy behaviour.
This is actually an EXCELLENT example of that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tonto
As far as hitching to LEAD is concerned...the excuse that it was to teach us to believe God was an afterthought. We were required to hitch because they didn't want to spend the dough to transport us there.
Money money money money money money money money money....THAT's what spoke to the black hearts of Vic and company. It's still speaking loud and clear to the pathetic "leaders" of TWI. Those in power today sold out a long time ago.
Vic's priorities? In order:
Power/Glory
Money
"Little Vic"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I disagree. The corps was about training participants to accomplish exploits and feats and sometimes, those feats were challenging and involved some harm.
Driving has harm.
Getting up at 5 in the morning and exercising has harm.
Hitching has harm.
Door to door witnessing has harm.
Speaking to people has harm.
Anything done out of the house has harm. Otherwise, gee, just stay home.
How far do you want to push the envelope?
The way corps was about pushing the envelope, and if folks who volunteered for it didn't know, golly, they should have known what was expected before volunteering.
If they didn't research their investment, knowing what was expected, they made a mistake.
And again, had twi chosen cars & trucks to transport folks to lead, and there was a crash, twi would get blamed anyway. The anti-twi folks would blame twi, not Greyhound.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
So then your position is that twi wanted/expected the driver to disregard all safety, in that situation? That seems to be what you are alleging, specifically.
Have you interviewed the BOT and asked them if this is what they wanted/expected?
Or the cabinet, or corps director, at that time?
Where in corps or lead literature does it advise drivers to and from lead to disregard all safety while driving?
I think if you want to access that kind of specific blame, you must get very specific with your facts.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
NO!
NO!
The Corps was "SUPPOSED" to be about training leaders and workers to go forth and lead God's people!
End of story!
We were there to get training. We were there to learn to lead God's people.
Exploits and feats!!!??? Where was that written? None of my literature said that?
Nobody told me that I'd have to leap tall buildings in a single bound....
BTW - where were those exploits and feats from LEADERSHIP when we did get hurt? Did vpw rush to anyone's side and pray for them? Did anyone get raised from the dead? NO! They got shown the door and told to not let it hit them on the a$$.
Is this how Jesus handled the woman caught in adultery? - I use that example because the shame she felt was at least as deep as those who "failed" to believe.
What about how he handled Peter? Petey failed numerous times by vpw's standards - but strangley enough Jesus didn't send him packing.
Exploits and feats...?????
NO!
NO!
Dangit!
NO!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Did the BOT or corps ever have any corps policy that stated corps were asked/expected to drive in an unsafe way and "believe God would cover"?
I actually heard differently, from teachings, that one shouldn't expect God to protect you when you do that kind of stuff. It was referred to as "tempting God", and God doesn't cover that kind of stuff.
Do you remember the "reckless and hilarous" devil spirits in Athletes? Same deal.
But TWI doesn't get thanked for that...
But as I mentioned before, the anti-twi folks will blame twi whenever they can, at every opportunity, for everything that goes wrong in twi. It is always twi's fault.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I said this....
Oldies replied
Which means Oldies can't possibly imagine a program where"unnecessary risk of death and rape"
can be replaced with something that does NOT have
"unnecessary risk of death or rape."
That's easy.
Put them in a vehicle.
Now, the risks of them getting in a vehicle with someone who will
kill or rape them has been reduced from "unnecessary risk"
to "acceptable risk". (If one seemingly-sane corps person goes
insane and rapes and kills the others in the car, you can't control
for that beyond screening the applicants. Thus, that is an
"acceptable risk." People take "acceptable risks" every day.)
How about the risks of people hit by vehicles?
Remove the unnecessary risk by putting them in a vehicle.
Now, if something hits them,
they're surrounded by detroit steel and a seatbelt.
Even cheap cars have seatbelts and a body.
Those are 2 layers of protection the hitchhiker lacks.
That's why most Christian organizations that have "training
programs" DON'T have "body counts."
They can't affect ALL risks, but they can remove
"unnecessary risk"-so they do.
Even the heathens and publicans do that without difficulty.
(Apologies to any heathens and publicans out there.)
Ok, where does the money for the vehicles come from?
(Someone already outlined a BETTER plan that included that
on this thread-and they did it offhand, without a program.)
That's easy-the tens of thousands a year that was paid for each
participant. They were housed in little dorms and fed
bottom-of-the-budget foods like familia, millet and broccoli,
and borscht. Even prisons feed better than that, last I heard.
So, there was LOTS of money for NECESSARY expenses.
Unless you were determined to make as big a FINANCIAL profit
off the program as possible. The operating costs of vehicles were
well within the income FOR the program.
As for "well, they didn't have the money when they STARTED
the LEAD program",
I simply say
"Don't run ANY program until you have the CAPACITY to run it."
And if they didn't know that-which they didn't-
I say they have no business PRETENDING to run a program
and letting the participants pay the price.
Again, doesn't anyone else get tired of Oldiesman inventing this complaint that
nobody is making?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Staying IN the house runs the risk of radon poisoning, being caught in a housefire,
slipping in the tub, and sitting minding your own business when a car crashes
through the wall. (It's been in the news, just not recently.)
DUH.
Nobody said "twi is responsible for preventing ALL harm from befalling its
participants."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."
Those are "acceptable risks."
Oldiesman's intentional ignorance of the concept of "unacceptable risk" is sad, but characteristic.
Since we've covered it in detail ALREADY on this page, and preceeding pages, repeatedly,
I trust there's no reason to do so again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Tonto, let's say that's true, and twi didn't want to spend the loot to get you there.
So?
Had twi spent the loot, to get you there, and something bad happened in transporting folks there with the loot they spent, they'd get blamed anyway.
Don't ya get it yet?
(Some folks do, I've gotten some emails so I know some folks do get what I'm saying.)
Oh glow-ray. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
First - go back and re-read that thread. The driver was surprised by the wind. He did try to control the truck.
Second, Now you want to talk about "tempting God???""!!!!! Oh but putting up to sixty (!) young folks on the highway at intervals wasn't tempting God? You know - I was dropped off with a partner in a bridge - not a smart idea!
You're just not right - you're just not right at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Well, we disagree on that point Doojable.
I still like ya. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
And you'll deny to your last breath that TWI was culpable for anything negatively that happened to some...
Tell me this OM... how would you react to this scenario?
YOU have a company that teaches leadership classes. Folks come to your campus from all over the country to take your courses. One of these courses is similar to 'Outward Bound' and helps folks overcome doubts about their abilities, helps them gain confidence, builds leadership! This course is part of the curriculam yet is located hundreds of miles from campus. YOU REQUIRE them to hitch hike to and from this class. Now even if you have no idea or thought that hitching is perilous you send them to the class. On the way to the class ONE person is raped or ONE person is killed (choose either, but only one occurrance).
You would be ruined and broke because IN COURT you would be found liable for having put those folks in that predicament. It doesn't matter that it never happened before, it doesn't matter that you didn't know that hitching was perilous. YOU would be found responsible of negligence... if not in whole, at least in part.
Now, take that to the next level... over the course of time, while YOUR STUDENTS were hitching to and from the class, there had been rapes, a student was killed, and others had many harms befall them. YOU would be found GUILTY OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE in court as well as losing all you own.
The same is true of TWI, whether you believe it or not. They are fortunate that the statute of limitations has expired...
I don't blame TWI for everything that happened as you so wonderfully like to throw out there as you paint with your broad brush of denial... I blame them for what they were responsible for... it just happens that there's a whole lot that they were responsible for...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
NO EXCEPTIONS WERE EVER MADE FOR "CIRCUMSTANCES".
And even approaching the subject left one open for criticism for "lack of believing."
The driver WAS expected to make it on time and pay NO ATTENTION to
safety considerations which made this an impractical goal.
Pretending it wasn't does not change that, and does not speak well of your
ability to view what DID happen fairly.
"Dear sirs:I understand that Believer X was subjected to a face-melting session when he
drove slowly and stopped due to inclement weather returning from LEAD.
The arbitrary return time was not kept due to his concern for the safety of
the passengers. Was he expected to disregard all safety in this situation?"
"Dear peon:
In the situation you speak, the considerations were concerning the failure
to believe God, and the failure to maintain commitments, of Believer X.
This situation has been dealt with to our satisfaction, and will no longer
be entertained.
However, we are concerned about your lack of faith in our ability to
administer our program. Have you taken it to God in prayer?
Your lack of faith in your leadership is disconcerting.
If you have any further doubts and misgivings, please take them
directly to your twig or branch coordinator rather than stepping outside
channels to contact us."
It's one paragraph down from
"Your 'Birth to the Corps' papers will be used as determinants to see if you're
ready to join an elite cadre who engage in casual sex,
and your suitability as a sex object for vpw to 'utilize'."
Read the fine print.
I think any reasonable person can see that this sentence has nothing to do
with your motivations. We've already seen this was the PRACTICE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
My responses to the river in Egypt in bold:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
As someone asked recently,
where in the corps literature is there an explanation of "accomplish exploits and feats"-
or any reference to them at all, for that matter?
Or "pushing the envelope?"
We've had plenty of direct testimony of the old "bait-and-switch" and how expectations
of the corps changed once they were on grounds, or without warning WHILE on
grounds, and peer pressure used to enforce the new "policies"
(which were STILL not put in writing.)
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."
Give WTH, Allan and Mike a hug for us next time you reply to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
And one more thing...
There would be some that would blame twi no matter what -
This is a recurring theme with you for dismissing a lot of wrong on their part.
This statement can not be used because there are too many factors, too broad a set of possible circumstances. Because:
IF twi had decided to used cars - some different scenarios could occur:
1. Twi drove corps to and from LEAD BUT in unsafe vehicles, or with unreasonable time frames requiring unsafe driving practices.
2. TWI used quality cars and gave drivers ample time to get there but didn't check driving records.
3.TWI used quality cars, quality drivers, and gave ample time and money to get to LEAD and back safely.
Now, in the last two scenarios, because at least some care was taken and shown for the LEAD students, I would doubt highly that we would find ourselves arguing on this topic. Then again, if this kind of care was shown it would be a reflection of care for the individual in other areas of the ministry - then we might not even have a forum at all.
BTW -the time allowed to get to a location? - DOUBLE the normal driving time. That means that TWI recognized that the Corps would be on the roads much longer than it would take to just drive. How's that for increased odds of danger...????
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Just because you have a mindset fantasy that this is so, doesn't make it so.
The driver was expected to "pay no attention to safety considerations"?
How in God's Green Earth do you know all that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I was there to witness so many of these scenarios that it isn't funny. So were many others.
How do you know otherwise?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
ROFLMFAOPIMP!!!
Was WC training set up to be like the training the Marines go through? How many of them are killed, abused, assaulted, driven to suicide and having to pay for their own training while being "encouraged to push the edge of the envelope"?
When there HAVE been casualties during training who has been faulted? The soldiers for riding in a helicopter that has missed an inspection? The soldier who neglegently fired a rifle that was loaded with flawed ammo? The soldier who drove the Hummer that blew a tire? :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
They sure didn't mind spending the money to send the plane down with el Cee on it did they? Could've saved themselves a lot of trouble if they'd thought it through... but actual cognizent thinking took second place...
Too bad... could've saved a lot of people a lot of grief...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.