Wow, not bad stats for 15 years ago! I wonder what the number of visits per week are now? (though I suspect the number of AOL users might be slightly lower)
Coded Logic
JoinedPosts by Coded Logic
-
20
How many visitors do we get ?
by Simon insomeone was asking me in the chatroom about the number of hits the site gets.
here is a brief summary (of what we currently get per week):.
21,000 visitors.
-
-
-
16
Geoffrey Jackson and the Australian Royal Commission's timing of events
by Tenacious ini'm not sure why i was thinking this but does anyone else find it an incredibly rare coincidence that geoffrey jackson just so happened to be in australia attending to his father when the arc happen to be at the exact stage for him to be deposed as a witness?
what are the chances of him being in the country at that precise moment?.
divine intervention?
-
-
Coded Logic
I don't see this as being too much of a coincidence. How often does Jackson go to Austrailia? Probably two or three times a year. Plus, how often do any of the other members end up visiting on assignment? Out of the rest of them combined, probably an additional two or three times a year.
So, it's probably safe to say there's a GB member in Australia about six weeks a year and, due to them being used at the various conventions, most likely none of those weeks would overlap. We also have to consider that there was a two week overlap from when the ARC wanted to interview Jackson to when he showed up. All told, the odds that one of the GB would be available in any given two week period of the year is 29%. Or, just a hair under one in three.
Happy coincidence. Nothing too amazing or surprising about those odds.
-
1
Another Sex Offender cover up
by Coded Logic ina jehovahs witness who got sexual kicks from strangling young girls went unpunished for years after his activities were covered up by the congregation at the warwick church he attended.but perverted ian pheaseys past finally caught up with him when one of his victims went to the police having become concerned about him getting a job at a hospice.the warwick resident was jailed for five years after pleading guilty at warwick crown court to assaulting one girl causing her actual bodily harm and two of indecently assaulting other girls.the 54 year-old of langcliffe avenue, was also ordered to register as a sex offender for life and given a sexual harm prevention order restricting his contact with children.the offences pheasey admitted dated back to the 1990s when he was a member of the congregation at the kingdom hall of jehovahs witnesses in the woodloes area.his first victim was attacked in the kingdom hall library, where pheasey was the librarian at the time, when the seven-year-old girl went to get a book.prosecutor nicholas taplow told the court how pheasey closed the door, and as she reached for the book, he grabbed her .
.. http://leamingtonobserver.co.uk/news/pervert-jehovahs-witness-jailed-string-assaults-young-girls/.
... the response "we despise child molesters" by the society is truly getting more and more ridiculous everyday.
-
-
Coded Logic
A JEHOVAH’S Witness who got sexual kicks from strangling young girls went unpunished for years – after his activities were covered up by the congregation at the Warwick church he attended.
But perverted Ian Pheasey’s past finally caught up with him when one of his victims went to the police having become concerned about him getting a job at a hospice.
The Warwick resident was jailed for five years after pleading guilty at Warwick Crown Court to assaulting one girl causing her actual bodily harm and two of indecently assaulting other girls.
The 54 year-old of Langcliffe Avenue, was also ordered to register as a sex offender for life and given a sexual harm prevention order restricting his contact with children.
The offences Pheasey admitted dated back to the 1990s when he was a member of the congregation at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Woodloes area.
His first victim was attacked in the Kingdom Hall library, where Pheasey was the librarian at the time, when the seven-year-old girl went to get a book.
Prosecutor Nicholas Taplow told the court how Pheasey closed the door, and as she reached for the book, he grabbed her . . .http://leamingtonobserver.co.uk/news/pervert-jehovahs-witness-jailed-string-assaults-young-girls/
... The response "we despise child molesters" by the Society is truly getting more and more ridiculous everyday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
-
35
Lurkers: A truth is either true, or it isn't. There is no in between.
by cappytan intruth is absolute.
there is no such thing as 2=1 or 1=2.. if one starts out with the equation 2=1, one has already failed.. truth = truth.
you cannot change whether something is truth or not.. when the organization teaches one thing as a truth (ex.
-
-
Coded Logic
But the point was on the "absolute truth"
I don't follow you. Can you explain the difference between (regular) truth and "absolute" truth?
-
-
-
Coded Logic
Now that I look back at everything, I was a JW by name only. My god's name is LOVE. Not Jehovah.
-PABAmnen!!!!
Religion does not have a monopoly on morals .
smiddyBut lately it sure does seem to be cornering the market on immorality! ;)
-
152
If YOU had to make the decision, would you respect a JW relatives wish to refuse a blood transfusion?
by nicolaou ina few years after i quit the meetings my mum needed her medical directive signed and witnessed and she asked if i'd do it.
i was surprised to say the least!.
i think she was just angling to include me and maybe find some lever to get me involved again.
-
-
Coded Logic
There is a false dichotomy being presented here. I can respect someone and simultaneously not act in accord with their wishes. These are not mutually exclusive propositions.
Because I respect PEOPLE. But that doesn't mean I respect all ideas. There's a huge difference!
What a person wants to do with their body is their business. If someone is conscious and refuses blood I would try to convince them otherwise. And if they were unconscious and I was tasked with their welfare - I would make the most moral decision I could - in accordance with the sanctity of human life. Because human well being trumps personal preference EVERY single time.
-
-
-
Coded Logic
Since the process of thinking if different for each person, doesn't that imply that morality is subjective?
No. A person is either correctly assessing a situation or they are not (thus why I used the specific term critical thinking). Different people doing an algebra equation may come up with different answers. But that doesn't mean that algebra is subjective. Only that some people aren't good at mathematics.The same is true with morality. Lots of people don't know how to best promote well being. But that doesn't mean morality is subjective. Only that some people aren't good at assessing the outcomes of complex situations.However, different reactions to the same situation can both be viewed as moral or immoral, depending on your viewpoint.
Just because different people have different viewpoints doesn't mean that morality is subjective. Because morality is not measured by sincerity. It's measured by effect. Hitler was sincere in his belief that Jews should be exterminated. But his actions were nonetheless in direct conflict with the well being of sentient creatures.
. . .
In regards to your question of whether or not to steal life saving drugs - the "correct" action to take is the one that maximizes well being while causing the least amount of unnecessary harm and suffering. The well being of sentient creatures covers a lot of ground. But we start with some basic precepts - life is generally preferable to death, pleasure/happiness is generally preferable to pain/suffering, fairness is generally preferable to bias, etc - and we work from there.
Weather or not it's moral to steal is entirely dependent upon the actions that theft would have. If there is a finite amount of medicine and stealing would mean someone else dying - then due to unfairness it may not be moral to steal. Or if stealing caused everyone else to start stealing all the time - then it may cause more harm than good. However, if the theft causes very little or no harm to anyone else and it saves a life - then the action would be moral. And, just because we may not know the outcome of a particular situation - doesn't mean there's not a correct answer.
I should also point out - morality is almost never binary. That is to say, there may be actions that would cause the most unnecessary harm and actions that would cause the most well being - but there are very often actions that lay somewhere in between. Maybe bribing the pharmacist is better than outright stealing. Or breaking in and stealing ALL the drugs would be worse than just taking what you need. etc. -
35
Lurkers: A truth is either true, or it isn't. There is no in between.
by cappytan intruth is absolute.
there is no such thing as 2=1 or 1=2.. if one starts out with the equation 2=1, one has already failed.. truth = truth.
you cannot change whether something is truth or not.. when the organization teaches one thing as a truth (ex.
-
-
Coded Logic
Truth is the label we apply to claims that match reality. Therefore, a claim is either true or it's not true.
Just because certain terms are conditional or relative (such as words like "tall" or "good") doesn't mean that the truth is nebulous. It just means we have to specifically know what is meant when someone says "tall" or "good" before we can asses whether or not their claim matches reality.
Words don't have intrinsic meanings. They have usages.
-Matt DillahuntyAs a side note - mathematics in and of itself is never true or false. As an abstraction, it can only ever be accurate or inaccurate just like claims about the force in Star Wars could only ever be accurate or inaccurate. In order for mathematics to be true or false it has to be in relation to something in the real world. For example, if I take these two oranges and put them with those two oranges then I will have a total four oranges - would be true. But 2+2=4 isn't true - it's accurate.
-
-
-
Coded Logic
When I say "moral" I mean the process of critical (and sometimes heuristic) thinking we use to evaluate the actions and behaviors of ourselves and others. Most generally, the metric we use for that evaluation is the well being of sentient creatures.
While the word "moral" may cover a broad range of concepts and ideas - it doesn't then follow that morality is subjective. People use the word "red" in a lot of different ways at different times. But it doesn't then follow that when I say something is "red" its color is entirely arbitrary or subjective.
Don't confuse the arbitrary use of a word as meaning that all concepts attached to that word are therefore arbitrary.
-
15
A Linguistic Argument for the Existence of God
by konceptual99 inhttp://www.etsjets.org/files/jets-pdfs/58/58-4/jets_58-4_771-86_baumgardner&lyon.pdf.
my favourite "logical" progression.... we demonstrated that because meaning is non-material, linguistic expressions likewise must be non-material.
we further showed that there is no indication that matter can generate non-material meaning-bearing linguistic expressions.
-
-
Coded Logic
meaning is non-material, linguistic expressions likewise must be non-material.
This claim is easily debunked as the first premise (above) can easily be shown to be false. I'll even put it syllogistic form for logic nerds:
P1.) Meaning is produced by brians.
P2.) Brains are material.
Conclusion: Meaning is material process. Therefore meaning is not "non-material".