Outlaw:
If you feel that there is a difference between a strawman and strawman arguments that is your opinion. But my question and ability to defend my argument still stands. Explain exactly what you think is a strawman argument. Explain with facts.
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
Outlaw:
If you feel that there is a difference between a strawman and strawman arguments that is your opinion. But my question and ability to defend my argument still stands. Explain exactly what you think is a strawman argument. Explain with facts.
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
Outlaw:
You're calling me a strawman so like I asked. Please point out a factual thing that I have said that is wrong. Not a spelling or a grammar issue, a factual statement that I made that is wrong. And please present your argument with facts and not your opinion or supposition.
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
Spoletta: Nowhere in my statements have I said that it is not immoral or unethical. I have said the opposite, that morally yes it is despicable and they should be prosecuted. But just because something we feel is immoral doesn't mean it is against the law. My statement was, that we as a society of general people have to get the laws changed so that children are protected. That includes raising age of consent laws in nations and even states that have staggering low ages of consent. Police and other authority can only prosecute people for actual crimes not for perceived or moral crimes. And also to remove priest-penitent privilege when it comes to sexual child abuse. Because, no matter what some people on here believes there are judges who view elder communication as privileged communication.
As an example in the Conti case. Irwin Zalkin asked Kendrick's former wife and former step-daughter if she thought it was a privileged communication. Why would Mr. Zalkin ask this question? Because it could be construed that the confession was transmitted in a priest-penitent privileged communication, which as the law allowed at that time did not have to be reported to the police.
Again just because I don't agree with everyone here that lawsuits are the best way to end this, I get trashed for my opinion. I believe that actual legislation is more beneficial than trying to fight this case after case that takes years upon years and there is no guarantee of a win. In fact even the Conti case the California Appellate court only ruled on negligence because they allowed her to go in service with Kendrick, not for anything else.
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
Outlaw. I am sorry that I misspelled toe to toe, I know that you type correctly 100% of the time. Tell me something that I have stated wrong? Please go ahead and give actual evidence that what I said was wrong. An actual fact and not your opinion.
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
Outlaw. I am not an apologist. I am very educated. And just because you go straight to emotion for your argument and I go for facts prove that. You want to go tow to tow on intelligence on this matter, I will take you on. I had no intention of arguing with anyone on this. I actually wanted to get advice on how to help get laws changed but for you. I will go up against you any time you want.
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
No a strawman doesn't want change. I have been making the statement from the first part of this thread. It is more important to get legislatures to change the laws of the land, that includes any priest-penitent privilege and to raise the age of consent. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that I am a straw man. Just because I know the law is not so cut and dry doesn't mean it either. Just because I don't cow-tow to some of you who feel that Watchtower and/or all religion should be sacked that I am a straw man. If I bring up actual facts doesn't make me false, it is that I think not just on emotion, which is not what the law is, but on logic and facts.
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
Yes a moral law is important, but moral law is not a law. So let's take this senario. Let's say that someone in Austria, where the age of consent is 14. So lets say a 25-year-old man has sex with a 14-year-old. According to Austria law that man has not committed a crime. Is that 25 year old disgusting for having sex with a 14-year-old? Of course he is. But has he violated anything that would get him sent to jail? No. So let's say I am the parent of this young girl, and I go and beat the living crap out of the guy, which I would be morally acceptable to do, but legally I could be charged with a crime because I assaulted that man. Now I am not talking about rape, but in the nation of Austria they say that it is possible for a 14 year old to consent to sexual activity. Now lets say that the elders tell everyone that, that man is a criminial because he had sex with a 14-year-old, would that be true, no it wouldn't. Would most people agree that he is a scum bag, yes, but he is not a criminal.
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
Did I say if there were no reporting laws? But in some countries, like I explained earlier, where the age of consent is low. If they haven't broken a law what am I supposed to report to the police?
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
Data-Dog:
I did answer your question. I said that I would report immediately. But then I said that if it is not a crime in the land in which one lives. There isn't a lot that the police can do. It is disgusting yes, but in some lands it is not illegal.
i have two honest questions for everyone here.
i understand that most here want retribution from the courts against watchtower for child abuse allegations.
but let us take away the instances where someone was accused of child abuse and then later put back into a position of authority, such as an elder or an ms. let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person.
scatheme:
I am sorry to tell you but atleast in the US, Watchtower does not contain a fiduciary relationship. That is what a number of judges have ruled. I am not saying that it is right. But I go for facts and that is a fact.