I was trying to explain that the girl’s actions were understandable from her perspective, not that they were objectively right.
If the inapprobriate activity was breathing, that would certainly be unfair. Sure, breating is a lot harder to give up than romance with a loved one, but again, I was trying to explain why the girl’s actions were understandable from her perspective, not objectively right
You miss my point. My point was that teens will break rules and lie about it. When they do, they should be punished, but if every time it happened they were disowned, then no teen would have a home or a family, and that would be an unworkable solution.
You argued that ‘not seeing a loved one’ was a simple rule because it could be summed up in one sentance. I didn’t see that as relevant, as I don’t think anyone was arguing that it was too hard to understand what the rule was. This was an example of a rule that could be described as a simple rule by your one sentance criteria, but that demonstrated the difference in rule that’s simple to follow, and a rule that’s simple to explain.
Ok, here Yukionna78 argues that the rule isn’t simple to follow:
And in the very next post, you argue that the rule is simple to understand
Who were you arguing against?
We’re talking about a rule against not dating non JW boys, right? You’d agree that she’s banned from dating all non JW boys, yes? Unless you’re claiming that they just randomly selected that boy to disallow her from dating.
Setting the line too lax is irresponsible because the daughter is likely to be hurt if she dates a drug dealer/mugger/etc. Setting the line too harsh is cruel because it denies her a chance for socialization, it may cause repression, and it denies her one of the best things about being a teenager. Clearly the line can be set in the wrong place, and since it can be in the wrong place, it can be pointed out that the line is in te wrong place. Yes, it’s subjective where the right place is, and we’ll never have an objective answer to who our daughters should date, but that hardly means we can’t debate where it should be, and it doesn’t mean that the line can’t be placed arbitrarily.
For example: I could posit that teenage girls should not be allowed to date anyone dangerous, because preventing harm to our daughters is more important than letting them date woever they want. I would also posit that no one who isn’t dangerous should not be banned, because arbitrary bannings cause family strife, and put the daughter through unnecessary hardship. So the next step would be identifying dangerous groups: criminals, 40 year old men, and so forth. The JW people beleive that non JW boys deserve to go here. I would beleive they don’t. When confronted, they could point to the danger to her immortal soul as to why she shouldn’t date non JW boys, and I could poit out that I do not beleive that God dislikes interfaith relationships.
Our two standards are different, yet we both have rational, nonemotional reasons for our placement. I would even be justified in thinking they were being unnecessarily cruel for cutting out most of the dating pool, and they would be equally justified in thinking I was horribly irresponsible for ignorig the danger to my daughter’s soul.
However you’re right that hateful/hate is a much too emotionally charged word, and isn’t precise enough. and it is certainly possible for me to act irresponsibly toward my child’s health out of ignorance or fear without hating her, just as it’s possible for JW to be stiflingly overprotective out of ignorance or fear without hating her as well.