Also, what is the objective, general principle that allows you single out "mandatory shuning" as a basis for government intervention into freedom of association? Why isn't something else not justification for the intervention? If shunning is "harmful", even over the long term, and "harmful" is a reason for government intervention, then why can't we justify that any group that promotes fat body acceptance lose their 501c3 status? - after all their view is harmful, even deadly!!
MeanMrMustard
JoinedPosts by MeanMrMustard
-
125
Mandated Shunning is a Crime
by Lee Marsh inmandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
-
-
-
125
Mandated Shunning is a Crime
by Lee Marsh inmandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
How about this: government threatens to take away Watchtower's charity status if they continue with the mandatory shunning.
What's the objective, generic principle applied here that allows you to discriminate based on religion?
The WT has a group rule - no associating with former members. They aren't pulling it out of their ass (even though you think so). They cite scripture. You can object: "They have that scripture wrong!" But that's the point - people believe all sort of interpretations of everything.
Why is this case (shunning) different, IN PRINCIPLE, than, punishing based on, say, thinking abortion is wrong? Why can't your law be used, as precedent, to take away the charitable status of any organization the current culture (which changes constantly!) deems as hurtful?
-
125
Mandated Shunning is a Crime
by Lee Marsh inmandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Also, it just ticks me off that we let our "loved ones" off so easily. For some reason, we can't accept the truth : the people who claim to love you have a choice. That's what's great about this - they CAN choose to do the right thing. But noooo, they are just people blown around in the winds of life with no personal accountability. If only the WT would just change. Nobody ever stops to think your so called "loved ones" were going to abandon you for a publishing company.
Either they really believe, which means they agree and will shun you even if the WT changes, and are morally retarded, or they don't really agree and are so weak as to choose a publishing company over their family, which means they are morally retarded.
-
125
Mandated Shunning is a Crime
by Lee Marsh inmandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
It is not, nor should it be considered a crime.
Also, I don't agree that shunning is violence. There has been a push lately to move non-physical force into the realm of "violence". Something isn't violent just because it is "hurtful" or "unpleasant". "Emotional violence" is like "hate speech", it's a very subjective term and should have no place in law, which should be based on objective standards.
And that's the issue - when you start to say shunning should be illegal, the rubber hits the road when you are forced to actually make a law, put something in writing, and enforce it. You have to think, first, how others are going to interpret your subjective language. And think of how it undermines what should be a sharp distinction between private life and government. You give the government a hammer to bash your enemies, it keeps the hammer and bashes other things, other people, or you.
-
28
Could this be the end of JWs? What are the consequences if it is?
by Teddnzo inmultiple very serious allegations against tony and then huge efforts to remove him from all pictures and videos, have to admit it doesn’t look good.. once the pennsylvania investigation becomes public knowledge and front page news it will be very very hard for 8 million pimis.. is it possible that this could be the largest problem the branch has ever faced?
larger than 1975, the overlapping generations or any other ‘test of faith’.
many will feel heartbroken and betrayed.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@LongHairGal:
I agree. I've often said, the WT won't fall. It will just get old, and gradually shrink. It will never really go away completely - there will always be the true believers, but it will become so small, it won't really touch too many lives.
-
41
More than 17 years of service to the XJW community!
by Nathan Natas ini want to take a moment to salute rick fearon, an "apostate" near boston massachusetts usa who more than 17 years ago started the sixscreens telenetwork on youtube.
you can find it here: https://www (dot) youtube (dot) com/ (at) araretreat/streams.. like our benevolent host simon green here at jehovahs-witness.com, rick has not done his great work for his own financial enrichment or to collect followers for himself, as some xjw grifters have done and continue to do.. saturdays and sundays are the busy days at six screens, with call-in programs like:.
* jw world news.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
I would like to salute Johnny the Bethelite too.
-
83
Do You Think Trump Is Done?
by minimus incertain forces appear to be trying to make sure donald trump never runs for president again.
some republicans are clearly abandoning trump and of course the democratic press has been saying trump is done!
is trump’s goose cooked?
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Aaannnnd now the GA indictment drops.
RICO?! RICO! Lol. Good lord.
-
13
Ivana Trump grave at Trump's golf course
by SydBarrett inpeople who dislike trump will see this as an eyesore and an insult to his first wife and the mother of his 3 children.people who support trump will describe this as a beautiful natural setting, like a woodland.
.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Why does anyone care about this?
-
83
Do You Think Trump Is Done?
by minimus incertain forces appear to be trying to make sure donald trump never runs for president again.
some republicans are clearly abandoning trump and of course the democratic press has been saying trump is done!
is trump’s goose cooked?
-
-
MeanMrMustard
There are plenty of circumstances where someone can be guilty of a crime in fact, even if their intent is not proven. That doesn't make them innocent, it simply means any subsequent punishment for their guilt is reduced, to take account of the lack of (proof of) intent.
No. He has to have the mens rea.
Even if Trump believed that dishonesty had taken place which resulted in him losing the election, if any measures he took, or advice he gave to others, to counter that were themselves unlawful, he is guilty of a crime regardless of whether he "intended" to break the law.
Yes, you are right if he did something unlawful, he commited a crime. He didnt do anything unlawful and therefore comitted no crime. He has to have the mindset for it. Conspiracy is a crime of the mind, as Dershowitz said.
Bear in mind also, this is an experienced businessman and former president, not some junior executive taking his first steps in the real world. He had plenty of political and legal advice available to him to check and double-check his options, and from a range of legal and political positions, if he chose to consult them.
Irrelevant. If we grant, for the sake of argument, that the election was completely fine, then what you are saying above is that it's a crime to be incorrect. If you honestly believe, but are mistaken, off to jail you go. That's not how it works. Well, not how it's supposed to work anyway.
However, I agree that with the current febrile atmosphere, political anger and accusations flying on both sides, and the way that the US judicial system is a public circus anyway during high profile cases (think OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Louise Woodward and goodness knows how many other cases), then it's hard to see how this mess will be settled once and for all by these lawsuits.
I hope matters of fact can be settled through this - that might be one positive that comes out of it. All the lawsuits that the indictment lists were never tried on the merits. There were some junk ones - the ones that kept hammering on voting machines in Venezuela, etc. But no meaningful signatures matches were done - except possible in AZ. There was a case that took a random sample of 200 (size determined by the court) and both sides got to look at 100 signatures. The plaintiff determined around 11% didn't match and the defense even higher (around 15%). But since that was the only remedy asked for (to do the match), the case died there. Every other case was dismissed for laches, standing, mootess etc. Really, how do you bring court cases on election fraud? Doesn't seem like there is a way. Not to mention the one big case about how election laws were changed without the legislatures of the states because of the mega-emergency of covid. Just pepper the cities with ballots - overhwelm the system, don't do signature matches because, it must all be good.
The courts were cowardly because they didn't want to face the idea that wide-spread mail balloting caused a forking mess.
But hey, as mentioned, one defense of charges like this is that the election was objectively stolen. And in order to show that, he can get the images of all ballot envelops and voter signatures. Let's do a meaningful signature match to really see.
I highly doubt that there is much that will happen to Trump ultimately. Frankly, even if it's a matter of damage to his 'reputation', he's so bullish that that will not matter to him, and with the combination of his wealth, his formidable support base and the protection he has from being an ex-President (and possibly soon to be back in the White House again), nothing serious will happen to him in terms of conviction and/or jail time.
Ohhh. You think this is about Trump? I don't care what happens to him personally.
--The gun in the diamond store conundrum.
You enter a jewelry store with a drawn pistol to stop a violent felony, you're a hero.
You enter a jewelry store with a drawn pistol when there's no robbery in progress , then you are the felon.
How is it a conundrum? That's why criminal mindset - the mens rea - is necessary.
The indictment has clearly anticipated the, "I truly believed the election was stolen and acted in good faith" argument. (By noting that Trump ignored the army of attorneys in the Justice Department, his own hand picked Attorney General, his own head of Homeland Security, his own Vice President, etc., etc., and deliberately surrounded himself with lunatics.)
This reduces to thought crimes. Either he listened to the opinion of highly political actors, or he's a criminal.
If I sincerely believe that my bank owes me money and 60 courts have told me they don't, would it be a crime for me to sneak in and take the money from the bank? Threaten the tellers if they won't give me my claimed money?
False analogy. If it were more accurate, you sincerely believe the bank owes you money. You have good reason to believe it to be the case, like a transaction records, and you complain to tellers, then the managers. No response so, you take them to court, but none of the courts review your actual evidence, dismiss your cases on laches and standing, then you complain to the news and BBB.
And then Jack Smith arrests you.
Don't you find it odd that the indictment left out the fact that Trump said to protest "peacefully and patriotically"? Several times he said this, and it was left out of the indictment completely. Not to mention that people were breaching the capitol building while he was speaking. The security was taken away and now we know there were God knows how many government agents instigating.
-
83
Do You Think Trump Is Done?
by minimus incertain forces appear to be trying to make sure donald trump never runs for president again.
some republicans are clearly abandoning trump and of course the democratic press has been saying trump is done!
is trump’s goose cooked?
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Here is a basic summary (intro), which seems exactly accurate at this point. Meant to be a joke, but in this clown world, it's real: