Posts by MeanMrMustard

62

NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration

by TerryWalstrom in

call me crazy, but i love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.. in the following video, the teacher really nails jehovah's witnesses on john 1:1 with utter simplicity.. begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.. i've never seen or heard of this before.. .

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5qkj7tmbg.

MeanMrMustard

Once you admit it is "a god" in a qualitative sense, isn't the debate over? We are then saying the Word was everything Theos is in qualities/attributes.

MMM

13

Revise Tax Code to Protect Children from Sexual Abuse

by ABibleStudent in

over the last five years, i have read lots of threads complaining about the wtbts, but few threads about becoming involved to help jws to critically think for themselves so that they can decide whether to stay, change the wtbts, or fade.

i'm curious if anyone is willing to write to their political representatives like i did today?.

before someone writes that the bill that i wrote would infringe on rights of either the establishment or free excercise clause of the u.s. constitution, i already checked with a lawyer and she said that the concept sounds promising.

MeanMrMustard

So the WTB&TS could lose their tax except status if they promote "bigotry, prejudice, and incite hatred and civil unrest", correct? And it would apply to any organization/religion looking to have tax-except status, correct?

Question: who gets to define what "bigotry" is in this case? What does "incite hatred" mean? Is it broad or narrow? Is disfellowshipping 'inciting hate'? Is not accepting homosexuals 'bigotry' under this definition?

MMM

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

i had originally thought that making the rules clear about what was and wasn't going to be allowed when discussing the michael brown verdict that we'd be able to avoid some of the unpleasantness that surrounded the subsequent trayvon martin trial discussions.. michael brown verdict discussion policy.

i had hoped that once the evidence came out there would not be as many people promoting opinions that contradicted it.

unfortunately, that appears to have been naive of me.

MeanMrMustard

Looks like some house members copied the "hands up don't shoot" stance on the house floor: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/lawmakers-ferguson-hands-up-113254.html

Good lord. *FACE PALM*

MMM

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

i had originally thought that making the rules clear about what was and wasn't going to be allowed when discussing the michael brown verdict that we'd be able to avoid some of the unpleasantness that surrounded the subsequent trayvon martin trial discussions.. michael brown verdict discussion policy.

i had hoped that once the evidence came out there would not be as many people promoting opinions that contradicted it.

unfortunately, that appears to have been naive of me.

MeanMrMustard

@Pacopoolio

I think what is being said is that you can bring out topics concerning police militarization all you like. Also, you can make arguments about sociological conditions of the blacks, how they are stuck economically, and we can all have a fun debate about that (or all agree :) depending on what is said).

But your position, as you stated: "we need reform in the legal system and police training and some way to monitor police better so it's not just one person's word against the other all of the time and so that so many unarmed people stop getting shot, see the flaws and issues with this case to see why."

You can't point to this case because it is a bad example. MB was shot because of his actions, and DW was justified in shooting him. This case can't be about police militarization. After all, it was a single cop (without a swat team) and a single gun (which was almost stolen from DW). If you use MB's case as an example of what is wrong with police, then you are implying that DW did something wrong. In this case, the evidence seems to show he did everything right given MB's actions.

MMM

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

i had originally thought that making the rules clear about what was and wasn't going to be allowed when discussing the michael brown verdict that we'd be able to avoid some of the unpleasantness that surrounded the subsequent trayvon martin trial discussions.. michael brown verdict discussion policy.

i had hoped that once the evidence came out there would not be as many people promoting opinions that contradicted it.

unfortunately, that appears to have been naive of me.

MeanMrMustard

@Simon:

What if the WTB&TS wins its appeal in the Candice Conti case? Are we obligated to agree with the court (in regards to our posts on this site) in such a scenerio? What about discussing Supreme Court rulings that we may disagree with? I am not trying to give you a hard time - I agree with your position on MB. But I am worried the rule has far reaching consequences.

MMM

551

Officer Wilson not indicted in killing of Michael Brown

by Simon in

after a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.

let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .

MeanMrMustard

@Pacopoolio:

Thanks for the response. I have little time to actually post anymore. When you first responded, it was Thanksgiving, and I had to head over to the in-law's house for Thanksgiving dinner... err, I mean ... since my FIL is an elder, it wasn't really that. Don't worry, we had ham instead of turkey, so no need to call the elders... the other elders, that is. :)

Now for your responses:

This shows a complete lack of understanding of social conditioning.

I don't think it shows any lack of understanding. First, notice my response had nothing to do with social conditioning. It was purely underscoring a statistical falacy that has been repeated over and over ad-nauseam in order to justify more legislation - legislation that will not work and has never worked. It was Designs that stated "Women in the private professional sectors earning 30% less than a man doing equal work..." This was stated after a plethora of comments trying to underscore all the social and economic inequalities in the world, in a thread about MB, after repeated attempts by some other posters to get him/her to just state the point in a clear fashion. It is not hard to see what Designs was pushing for.

There is no -one reason-. This is just basic, basic, basic sociology; first level classes.

Go back and read my comment again. The very idea of my comment was to underscore the very same idea you make above, except it had more of an economic slant than a sociological one. The statistic of "women make 30% less than men for equal work" is calculated by taking women as an aggregate, and then attributing "equal work" and the average wage to the entire group. In other words, it is a falacious generalization, most likely created to prop up more government intervention into a "failed" market. However, when you realize that the income gap comes directly from some of the free choices made by women, then this horrible moral injustice vanishes. In other words, there are other causes, there is no "-one reason-" for this, and more importantly, none of the reasons for the income gap has anything to do with an effort by society to hold women down. Because women have choices, and because they have the babies (biological fact), women tend to leave and enter the work force with huge gaps in between jobs. Also, they tend to choose vocations that will work well with a family, or they get part time work, which would of couse pay less. Or choose benfits over wages. It has been shown that if you take men vs. women, in the same job, with the same number of years, no gaps, similar accomplishments, no kids, etc., the gap goes away and sometimes women make more. I'll post one source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_pQ7KXv0o0.

But now onto your sociological comments:

AGAIN, there are a huge mix of conditions that create conditions like the wage disparity. A HUGE condition, that you completely seem to have missed, even though it's pretty obvious, is that, from a young age, girls are conditioned to be more meek and unassertive than males, combined with a double standard of women that act assertive as compared to males, that makes them less likely to demand higher pay and career advancement.

I am not sure if I accept your generalization about little girls being taught to be meek. But suppose I do, and suppose we change "meek" to "submissive" (because meekness doesn't necessaily imply being a push-over), I don't think it would be a "HUGE" condition, like you state. After all, if you can remove this huge income gap by considering other factors (it depends more on a family, marriage, kids, etc), then this type of behavior can't be statistically significant. Therefore I would change your "HUGE" to a "really tiny". Further, it is not the case that wage increases come from "asking for a raise" alone. Most of the time it is because another employer will bid up your wage and draw you off. This market force has very little to do with meekness.

This isn't high level stuff - it's just like people just completely ignore the conditioning and brain development that creates the adult, that happens from 0-16, and think that everyone shares the same privilege as themselves. This doesn't take college to understand, it's just dropping the ego, and realizing that what made you, you, is based on a combination of factors from the outside that hit you throughout your life, the most important, being in childhood.

Earlier in this and other threads, you have people making assertions like, "They were given horrible diets as children, stifling their brain development and screwing with their decision making, but why didn't they make the same choices as middle class white male, they had all the opportunities in the world!"

Who says I do not understand this? It is completely obvious that there are differences among people. Some people will have good upbringing, some will not. Some will have good childhood conditions, some poor. Some will be born physically fit, and some will be born deformed. This is life, and nobody, seems to be denying this.

But - so what? Would you say that because a child like MB may have grown up in a poor neighborhood, laws should not apply equally in his case? Should they be "relaxed" for him? Are we supposed to say, "Well, he didn't eat right as a child, and look! - his parents weren't that great, therefore we need to give him some chances when it comes to theft and assult."? If you are really saying this, and I hope you are not, then think of the incentives this will create among the community.

Just like women get paid less (on aggregate) because of their life choices, MB was shot because of his choices. It is not right to say, "MB made poor choices because of XYZ, THEREFORE, if he attacks an officer, threathens the officer's life, it is unlawful or even improper to shoot MB." I simply don't think your sociolocal argument matters - you attack a police officer and threaten his (or her) life, you can be lawfully shot. Actually, I would say this about anymore, police officer or not. You attack someone with clear intent of hurting/killing that person, and that person has a gun, and you are shot dead - that is a consequence of your choice. We learned this with TVM.

MMM

551

Officer Wilson not indicted in killing of Michael Brown

by Simon in

after a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.

let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .

MeanMrMustard

@designs:

Women in the private professional sectors earning 30% less than a man doing equal work...

False. If this were really true, you would see businesses firing men left and right to hire women in order to realize a 30% savings on their highest expense - mainly wages. It is this type of ridiculous talk that feeds the issues in this thread. For some reason you can't see past social issues as the causes of everything. Everything stems from social injustice. Why can't you see other causes? In the case of this thread, for you MB was shot because he was black. In the case of women, well they are paid less because they are women. In reality, MB was shot because he attacked a police officer. And women are paid less because they leave the work force to take care of a family, or choose to go into a differing fields than men. Pay no attention that when you factor out life variables, women often get paid more.

MMM

20

Biblical Injunction To 'Spare the Rod' And Spoil the Child' or 10 Reasons Not To Hit Your Child

by frankiespeakin in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltoyjvslwgg.

http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/tenreasons.html.

in 37 countries 1 around the world, it is illegal for a parent, teacher, or anyone else to spank a child, and 113 countries prohibit corporal punishment in schools.

MeanMrMustard

The Family Guy proposed an explanation of Hitler's anger toward Jews that seems to make a lot of sense...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTO6fAJf1GM

MMM

176

JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

by KateWild in

i was outraged at this and had to post it.. http://jehovahswitnessreport.com/blog/jw-refuses-to-provide-wedding-stationery-to-gay-couple.

i think she is a hypocrite and i bet she sells her invites to fornicators, or does she ask them if they are having sex before marrige, before she takes their money?.

i was never like this when i was a jw, it's even more disturbing that she is going to ask her elders what to do.

MeanMrMustard

@LisaRose and DJS:

I’ll go through your questions, LisaRose, a little bit later when I have time. But first I have to address something. It has already been addressed in my previous posts.

LisaRose wrote:

Is it because you feel being gay is a choice? If so, what scientific evidence do you have to back that up? I think that this is only under discussion because some people find homosexuality personally repugnant.

and DJS wrote:

You are simply trying to cloak your hatred behind faulty rationale, just like all of the other AOWM who aren't happy unless the world looks as they desire it: white, male, entitled with everyone else falling distinctly beneath them in the pecking order.

I wrote the quote below just one single post back (look on pp 7):

First of all, I don’t hate homosexuals. I actually don’t care at all. I have a firm belief that government should stay out of the private contracts of individuals. To me that means if a gay couple wishes to enter into a marriage contract, great. It also means that if a group of people wish to enter a polygamous relationship, great! I honestly don’t have a problem with it. Read that again if you get the urge to claim I am full of hate.

Let me add to that, in case I wasn’t clear enough. I am an atheist and a libertarian. The WT has not caused me to hate gay people. In fact, if a man decided to have sex with another man, and then (out of sheer adventure) add a women, a goat, and a horse to the mix - I don’t care. My only lament would be that perhaps the goat and the horse, if give a choice, would run away. Other than that, I don’t care.

As with most of the political discussions that I get into, we have to get past a set of accusations stating that I am either parroting Fox news, or have some sort of white supremacist agenda. None of those are the case. I see a lot of social issues making inroads into natural rights. When JWN posters call on governments to somehow making shunning illegal, I end up on the side of the WT, not because I like the WT, but because that would undermine freedom of association. In this instance I am making the case for private property rights, not because I think discrimination is right, but because I feel the erosion of private property has dire consequences and sets a bad precedent. It is the same with proposed "hate speech" laws - as if hate speech is somehow different thatn free speech.

MMM

176

JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

by KateWild in

i was outraged at this and had to post it.. http://jehovahswitnessreport.com/blog/jw-refuses-to-provide-wedding-stationery-to-gay-couple.

i think she is a hypocrite and i bet she sells her invites to fornicators, or does she ask them if they are having sex before marrige, before she takes their money?.

i was never like this when i was a jw, it's even more disturbing that she is going to ask her elders what to do.

MeanMrMustard

@LisaRose:

No business owner has to be in business, that is a choice.

Any no gay couple has to get their cake, photographs, or invitations from a business that does not wish to provide them. They too have the choice to move on to a shop that does.

The government is simply saying that if you choose to run a business that serves the public, you must not discriminate on the basis or race, religion or sexual orientation. You may not like that, and yes it is limiting your freedom, but it is not slavery, far from it.

I disagree. The reason slavery is morally wrong derives from private property rights - the most fundamental property right. One human can’t own another because each human has, from birth, the natural right of ownership of his or her body and the fruits of the labor resulting from that ownership. When you force someone to work in an endeavor that is not voluntary, it is the very definition of slavery.

It is not about me ‘not liking it’ or just ‘limiting my freedom’. It is not even about hate. It is about eroding a fundamental natural right of human beings. This shouldn’t be sacrificed to try to “fix” the jerks of the world through law.

A business owner could choose a different business, could choose not to be in business or choose to comply with the law, even if it is distasteful to them.

The sword has two edges: the gay couple could just go to another business. In fact, in the NM photographer example, they did find a new photographer. Again, I agree that those business owners that deny their services on the basis of color or sexual orientation are jerks. But we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. We shouldn’t start a precedent (law loves to work off of precedent) that actually attacks fundamental rights.

You seem very knowledgeable about the law, so I am surprised that you think this is just the same as discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation. Antonio chose not to work for someone, but it was not because of her race, religion or sexual orientation, so it does not violate the anti discrimination laws. You could say no one was criticizing him for it, but I doubt that is true, you yourself are criticizing him. If I were him I would have taken the job and used my time to find out why she believed that way and given her my viewpoint. So, he may be wrong, but it is not discrimination, at least when it come to the law. False equivalency.

This isn’t about the law. It is a philosophical issue. On what basis, for what reason, does owning a business suddenly mean that the owners are to relinquish private property rights, not only to their business but also to their very labor? If you are saying that just the sheer action of providing the community with a service or good constitutes a relinquishing of these rights, then you are just a hop-skip-jump away from public ownership of the means of production.

The example is not false equivalency. Both are discrimination on ideological grounds.

The anti-gay photographer is saying: I don’t want to serve you because I believe X.

The gay hair dresser is saying: I don’t want to serve you because you believe X.

….. where X is a religious belief that being gay is wrong.

The hair dresser and the anti-gay photographer are both exercising their right to private property. Nothing wrong with either of them. I was not criticizing Antonio, I was agree with him.

The government has discrimination laws in place for a reason, and it only applies to those particular protected classes. You may not like it, you may feel people should be able to do what they want, but I personally believe they are good laws, put in place for a reason. I don't want to go back to a world where gay people couldn't live openly and where black people could not eat in certain restaurants. I believe having these laws has helped society to move in a more positive direction. If you disagree, you should work towards getting the law changed.

What is that reason? To change people morally? If people are to be punished for being jerks, the market will punish them. They will naturally have to pay for their discrimination, as there will be many willing businesses ready to compete. This if far more preferable to stripping away private property.

MMM