bohm

Joined

• started 191 topics
• posted 7,847 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by bohm

• 
  22

  2 bilion income from selling HQ now

  by Gorbatchov in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the wts has a tax free income of 2 bilion dollar now by selling the brooklyn hq (beside other recent money schemes).

  were has the money gone?.

  it must be somewere.. g..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  I really think it is as simple as they needed the money. I dont think anything else explains the cutback and in particular why they first announced an expansion and then went in reverse. Why they needed the money is the interesting question, but it could be as simple as incraeasing expenses over many years
• 
  11

  A Taxonomy of WT Presidents/GB

  by breakfast of champions in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  [this is what happens when the semester ends.

  idle hands.

  so i was thinking of how you would categorize the presidents of the wt, and i came up with this:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  I was trying to come up with a witty 4th category and then I realized that no, this is probably about it!.
• 
  13

  JW org Legal Developments Menu Silent on Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry

  by steve2 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  go to the legal developments menu on jw org.

  click on legal developments by region.

  you will find several countries listed where the ministry and practice of jws is banned and/or constrained.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  From this, together with how the WT is treating their recent sell-offs, we can conclude that the WT has moved on from saying made up things happened invisibly to real things!
• 
  12

  Global warming? Maybe next year.

  by a Christian in

  1. social
  2. current

  year of global coolingby david deming.

  december 19, 2007 .

  al gore says global warming is a planetary emergency.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  This is completely normal, right?

  
• 
  10

  Anand vs. Carlsen

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  anand and carlsen is playing the world championship right now.

  after 4 draws carlsen just won game 5!

  (go go carlsen!).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  wow Karjakin missed the forced draw and Carlsen ground him down. Amazing that Carlsen found Nd5 in move 62, that was better than the computers top line.

  I think it is fair to say Carlsen won two games... the problem is just that game 8 was for Karjakin ;-).
• 
  10

  Anand vs. Carlsen

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  anand and carlsen is playing the world championship right now.

  after 4 draws carlsen just won game 5!

  (go go carlsen!).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  live link: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tournaments/carlsen-karjakin-world-chess-championship-2016#live

  supercomputer analysis: http://analysis.sesse.net/

  But I think this game is over, Karjakin can draw tactically and he will probably find that solution...
• 
  10

  Anand vs. Carlsen

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  anand and carlsen is playing the world championship right now.

  after 4 draws carlsen just won game 5!

  (go go carlsen!).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Chess 24 commentary is very good even though they don't have pictures of the players.

  Carlsen got winning positions he did not convert during the first few games, then he had a complete meltdown in the last two games and is behind; this game is not going good either.

  Hindsight is 20/20 but obviously he regret he did not just play passive as Karjakin and used his advantage in the playoffs, right now Karjakin is a clear favorite to win.
• 
  86

  Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

  by cofty in

  1. social
  2. current

  professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

  ) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

  in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  When did I say it was a good idea? I'm just pointing out why things that seem crazy with the luxurious benefit of hindsight can seem more reasonable and not be questioned at the time or even be generally supported.
  Again, I'm commenting on the realities of public opinion and outcomes, not judging what is wise or right from an absolute moral point of view

  Sorry, I misread you and I should have been more careful. I think we can easily agree that people can be swayed to support such a database, that seems to have already happened for a large fraction of the population. I am commenting on what is right from a moral standpoint. I think creating such a database now would be both dangerous (from a free-society point of view), morally wrong and inefficient.

  I meant that the notion of "free speech" is usually subverted to justify every obnoxious and vile utterance. The irony being that the one thing it was meant to cover, political expression and debate, is what is so often *not* allowed.

  I agree that the segment of the left I call the "crazy left" does exactly that, and it is very wrong. I also think the "crazy right" does the same (see Trumps calls for changing libel laws). I am not trying to draw a moral equivalence to excuse the "crazy left" as I do not think I have anything of consequence in common with them, however, I am right now more concerned about the "crazy right" as I think their view is being represented by the president-elect.

  Whether something is passed or supported is not the measure of whether it is right and correct. Governments and legislators sometimes (often?) make mistakes and not every piece of legislation is judged correctly.

  I agree, which is exactly my point regarding whatever changes Trump dreams of making to the constitution. I finished listening to the debate and the legal scholar who was defending the bill went to pains to point out that she did not want to argue it was a perfect law, she rather wanted to express what the bill in question said and did not say.
• 
  86

  Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

  by cofty in

  1. social
  2. current

  professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

  ) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

  in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  And each time, it happens because it makes sense to do at the time. Internment of the Japanese is judged, like the bombings of Dresden or the Nuclear attacks on Japan with the luxury of hindsight. There was no guarantee at the time that the Japanese in America might not be a threat and if there were Islamic forces launching the scale of attacks that Germany and Japan did, there would be few people objecting to the rounding up and internment of muslims. (..)
  I'm not arguing for it or saying it's "right" or even a net benefit in the situation (taking things like "intelligence" into account). I'm just describing reality.

  Okay I think we just have to disagree that the imprisonment of the Janese during WW2 or McCarthyrism was a good idea. With regards to the database, I am referring to Trumps suggestion of making a database of US Muslims now, today, sans any hypothetical attacks. I think that is a dangerous path to take and I think we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point.

  Our system of government and any healthy democracy relies on people being free to voice their political opinion on issues. In fact, it is the only thing the "free speech" part of the constitution is meant to refer to. It's been subverted to the point that we're often unable to object but everyone claims the right to say every piece of ugly rhetoric imaginable.

  I am not sure I understand the last two lines.

  I haven't seen the details on the vote. I suspect the majority of people don't pay enough attention until things arrive

  Well, it was passed by about 240 votes to 40..

  If you watch his interview (I think on The Rubin Report) he was silenced from talking about the issue so suggested they debate the principle of free speech. They didn't see the irony of allowing that debate to go ahead on the condition that he not mention any of the pronoun legislation.

  I am watching the debate and they are mentioning the relevant legislation again and again... Again, it is very difficult to see the university is doing their best to silence him.
• 
  86

  Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

  by cofty in

  1. social
  2. current

  professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

  ) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

  in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  If any group wants to attack the US do they just declare themselves a religion and are then untrackable? Maybe the mafia should consider declaring themselves a faith as well, would probably make things easier for them.

  Who cares what the UCLA "think", what matters ultimately is what the electorate vote for. All talk of rights any anything else is predicated on the notion that someone can decide what is and isn't OK: that is the government, via the supreme court, ultimately controlled by the people.

  Well, Trump proposed a database of all Muslims (US citizens) and so you will have to ask him these questions as presumably the statement assumes they have an answer.

  In a democracy such as the US what fundamentally defines people's rights are the constitution. You are correct that the people can change the constitution to make something constitutional which formerly were not; You may feel such a database is a fine idea but I disagree. I think the creation of databases targeting people of a particular religious or political persuasion is one of the stepping stones into tyranny and thought-crime. I think it was wrong during WW2 when the Japanese were put into camps, I think it was wrong during the 50s under McCarthy and I think it would be wrong in 2017.

  No one can force anyone to call them he or she, whatever they are. The only recourse you have is to tell someone that they are being insulting and to cease talking to them.

  There is an inconsistency here. In the previous post, you said that "what matters ultimately is what the electorate vote for". The Canadian people have voted for a government that --with a very, very considerable margin-- voted for C 16. Thus, if you believe that what matters is what people have voted for (rather than some underlying principles), then there can be little more discussion if C 16 is right or wrong.

  The problem with these people is that there is no public opinion on it.

  The margin by which C16 was enacted would suggest otherwise.

  The reason I suspect Jordan Peterson is right on this issue is because it appears the university is trying to do everything it can to deny even discussion of the issue. Preventing the espousing of ideas is rarely the sign of a solid argument.

  How can they do "everything" to "deny discussion" and at the same time host a debate which is broadcasted on the internet?