Posts by OrphanCrow

18

New Movie: Blood, dealing with Blood Transfusions. Coming to a theater near you soon!

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=121&v=b-tcy86as6i.

omg i cannot believe that someone is making a hollywood-like movie based on the topic of blood transfusions and jehovah's witnesses!

here is the trailer..

OrphanCrow

Zeb: I feel their energy might have been better directed to the recent ulcer opened on paedophiles'

Zeb, this film has been in the works for years. Personally, I am over the moon that this long neglected issue - the blood ban - is finally getting some attention.

The child abuse issues will get their spotlight some day but it won't be getting it with this much needed film. The pedophile problem is not the only problem that deserves to be scrutinized.

The energy and commitment that has already gone into this film deserves respect, not criticism.

18

New Movie: Blood, dealing with Blood Transfusions. Coming to a theater near you soon!

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=121&v=b-tcy86as6i.

omg i cannot believe that someone is making a hollywood-like movie based on the topic of blood transfusions and jehovah's witnesses!

here is the trailer..

OrphanCrow

steve2: I'd also assume funding is provided by Christian outreach groups...

The film is not being funded by Christian outreach groups.

I checked with the producer, Alex, as to where the funding is coming from and his response was that it has been, so far, self funded. Lol! He said that he sold all his "worldly" possessions in order to get the film off the ground.

The good news is that there are some potential investors on the horizon. And they are not Christian outreach groups.

Dio: .....if its a good film with good direction, storyline AND packs an emotional punch, it could do really well.

From what I have heard so far, this film has the potential to deliver exactly that.

18

New Movie: Blood, dealing with Blood Transfusions. Coming to a theater near you soon!

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=121&v=b-tcy86as6i.

omg i cannot believe that someone is making a hollywood-like movie based on the topic of blood transfusions and jehovah's witnesses!

here is the trailer..

OrphanCrow

An interview with the producers of the film "Blood" - Alex Riker and Jason King - where the background of the film is discussed.

It is long - I am listening to it right now...Alex and Jason give lots of details about their JW experiences and, in addition to the film, they discuss many aspects of the religion, including child abuse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6v5KVHl5rY

18

New Movie: Blood, dealing with Blood Transfusions. Coming to a theater near you soon!

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=121&v=b-tcy86as6i.

omg i cannot believe that someone is making a hollywood-like movie based on the topic of blood transfusions and jehovah's witnesses!

here is the trailer..

OrphanCrow

DoC: Sad to say, I don't see a big audience for this. The public really doesn't care about JWs because they are such a minority of the population, a nuisance (and mostly weird).
JW's, of course, will be told to boycott it.
Only family members who have been affected by a JW refusing transfusion will have any remote interest.

The only reason that "the public" shows little interest is simply because they are ignorant of the the full implications of the WT's blood ban.

I used to think the same as you, Doc, until I started talking to non-JWs about the blood ban and it has been surprising how many people are totally unaware of how much this issue has affected those affiliated with the JWs. The "public" that I have spoken to about the blood issue have been horrified when they learn how many JWs die each year from refusing blood.

They have simply shown no interest because they know nothing about it. This film will change that.

18

New Movie: Blood, dealing with Blood Transfusions. Coming to a theater near you soon!

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=121&v=b-tcy86as6i.

omg i cannot believe that someone is making a hollywood-like movie based on the topic of blood transfusions and jehovah's witnesses!

here is the trailer..

OrphanCrow

OMG I cannot believe that someone is making a Hollywood-like movie based on the topic of blood transfusions and Jehovah's Witnesses!

The producer is an exJW from Canada.

The film has gone into pre-production this month - March - and it goes to camera in October.

Thanks for posting, ILove. I am quite looking forward to seeing this film - it should be a good one.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

OrphanCrow

finkel: Perhaps it might be a bit more relevant and prudent to talk about people hunting people in cites rather than people hunting animals in the woods.
Protecting people from other people seems to be a little more important of an issue is it not ?

Exactly. That is the whole point. Hand guns are only good for killing people, not animals. Only poor hunters need side arms. Or people who want to kill other people.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

OrphanCrow

Had: ...man you must be hella accurate with the hipfire LOL.

Yes. They are. It is how my brother took down a lynx that was getting ready to spring on him from 10 feet away. Rifle shot from the hip.

Do you really think that side arms are a necessity for hunting? Why don't Canadians use them for hunting? Why does a whole entire country (noteworthy for its hunting territories) make them illegal for hunting?

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

OrphanCrow

And just one more thing about this comment: "ask anyone that's done a decent amount of med. to lg. game hunting. Sort of a necessity."

If it is such a necessity, then why do we have a whole entire country (Canada), which has far more hunting land and wild animals than the States, say that it is illegal to use side arms for hunting? If carrying a side arm for hunting is a necessity, then why do so many American hunters come up to hunt in Canada, the land where they can't use side arms for hunting? Huh...not only that, but the American hunters can't even take the meat home with them. Trophy hunters. Without side arms.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

OrphanCrow

Hadriel: Ask anyone trying to sight in with a rifle that close with a dangerous animal charging you, you need a sidearm. ask anyone that's done a decent amount of med. to lg. game hunting. Sort of a necessity.

Not really. I have a woman friend who hunts boar with a bow. We actually have a large problem with boars in some rural areas.

As I said before, I have asked people who are active hunters. A side arm is not necessary to be a good hunter. Not at all. If you ask any northern Canadian hunter about using a side arm in hunting, they would call you either a sissy or a bad hunter.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

OrphanCrow

fmf: Nope. Not true.

I apologize. I didn't realize that not all states allow it. Thank you for the correction.