Ok fair enough, if that's how this should end. Kate xx
Richard Dawkins defends mild pedophilia, says it does not cause lasting harm
by chrisuk 320 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
BucketShopBill
Gals and Guys, if your conscience does not bother you, watch this Episode from Cartoon Network, "Boondocks Season 4" "The New Black" and closely examine how this World is constantly seeking ways to get offended but there's gonna be another group that trumps the offended's pain and hurt.
It's raw and funny, need to understand Aaron's humor.
-
Focus
cofty:
Focus - I never atacked you.
I am certain I have never been "atacked".
If you can't see the difference between criticising what people say - and giving good reasons for those criticisms
But of course I can see such difference.
Indeed, it relates to my modus operandi. I hold those expressing views and taking actions accountable for their decisions.
making vile personal attacks on people's character then you are not very bright.
I always know - I'm quoting AlanF on this; I recently saw it on a thread on this forum - that when someone accuses Phookus (even subject to a conditional) of not being very bright, then not only must they have lost the argument, but furthermore they know they have lost it.
And pssst... the emboldened text is an ad hominem, precisely what you were decrying earlier when it was (most assuredly) committed by said VG.
"You" are just a screen anonym. It is thus technically impossible for VG to libel "you", certainly in any jurisdiction with which I'm reasonably familiar, and that includes the US, UK and much of the Commonwealth and the Western EU.
VG could harass you, but I'm sure a mere theist couldn't manage that.
You shouldn't really be boxing so far above your weight, now, should you?
__
Focus
("Matt. 7:3-5" Class)
-
cofty
Its good to see you have toned down the hysteria and "everybody look at me" style that you had a few weeks ago.
Perhaps you are learning or growing up. Let's hope it lasts.
-
Caedes
Perhaps being shown up as a hypocrite, a liar, a plagiarist, a coward and intellectually dishonest was good for focus?
-
Focus
cofty:
Do not blame me because you are probably unfamiliar with the Watchtower's published definitions of Spiritual Fornication and spiritual Pornography.
All of these things are easily found in my List, given freely by me to Randall and others. An early version from 15 years back to be found here:
http://www.freeminds.org/history/list.htm
Those propagating and supporting such highly damaging (to the happiness and QOL of those subject to them) views, from positions of authority (including jW Elders) are thus Spiritual Rapists and Spiritual Pedophiles.
What's sauce for the goose serves well for the gander... right?
Or do I have to spell it out s.l.o.w.l.y ?
Reflect. Preferably silently.
I am sorry that you apparently feel, or felt, threatened in your (self-appointed) role as "BB Intellek-chewull". Well, boy, move along over, there's room for more than 144,000 there.
Unless you are a young Jewish uncircumcised dimwitted virgin male, though.
Caedes:
LIAR.
Your boast about being a troll, that your purpose is to annoy people as much as you can, says it all.
This board serves a useful purpose. So, deranged stalker.... run along now.
Others - I'm none of those things, but you'd know that already.
This idiot is still smarting from his demolition by myself and another here:
["A precious gift to all from Jehovah (channelled via Focus)"]
Address your idiotic and unlearned "copyright" (or is it now, not copyright? haha!) complaints to the same Jehovah and not to me. If unsure of the address, ask mummy, the same one you allow to be spiritually molested... what a blessing it must be to have you as a son.
Anything for which I claim copyright, I rightly do so, raca. That I freely and non-cancellably permit the use thereof does not change the fact that I created it and it is my copyright.
But then why is a lawyer arguing with a moron, except for (clue in the "Class")... ?
__
Focus
("lol!" Class)
-
Caedes
Demolition, lol.
Is that why you couldnt answer a single one of my questions to you in that thread?
Is that why you had no answer when I called you on your vague threats? (proof of your cowardice)
Is that why you had no answer when I called your bluff on outing me? (proof that you are a liar)
Is that why you had to resort to insulting my mother and wife when you ran out of any sort of sensible argument.
Perhaps it was when you got found complaining about another poster posting unattributed quotes on another thread. (proof of your hypocrisy and that you are a knowing plagiarist)
I can't say I noticed you demolishing anything other than whatever reputation you had.
Oh and pot meet kettle, deranged stalker? you are the one trawling back through my posts to try and find something to complain about, and then threatening to post a photo of my family. What a hypocrite.
Have you managed to define what a 'spiritual rapist' is yet? Thought not.
I only annoy people with an overly inflated sense of their own importance. Mathematician, lawyer, MIT computer whizkid, yeah right.
-
Saved_JW
If you think about it. At least Richard Dawkins is being consistent. In a world where there are no moral absolutes, only subjective moral opinion, there is no foundation to say that any sexual orientation is absolutely right or wrong.
All we are left with is personal opinion and feelings. The sexual desires of one individual differ from that of another. What is good for one, is repugnant for another. I think the bigger issue here is Richard Dawkins giving a moral opinion in the first place. Morality isnt the subject of science, neither is he an authority on the subject itself.
-
frankiespeakin
I think the bigger issue here is Richard Dawkins giving a moral opinion in the first place. Morality isnt the subject of science, neither is he an authority on the subject itself.
I think you're right on the bigger picture. And since it is just his veiw point from his past and not a scientific paper subject to peer reveiw he is free to expess his opinion just like anybody else. A lot gets lost in the translation of these feeling especially when someone is looking for dirt on the person to discredit his main subject material of choice evolution and the rejection of the beleif in the biblical Deity.
-
Viviane
I think the bigger issue here is Richard Dawkins giving a moral opinion in the first place. Morality isnt the subject of science, neither is he an authority on the subject itself.
Scientists shouldn't be allowed to talk about things except their subject of expertise?