Posts by _Morpheus

also new this year is that the special talk will be prerecorded and given by a branch committee member rather than a brother from the local congregation.

I find myself in unframiler territory.... i agree with everything slim said. Theres no way they change the teaching. Why would they? They can do or say anything they want and jdubs will simply go along wit it. There is no impetus or any need whatsoever to change it. Move along. Nothing to see here.

94

why won't legal department simply release all the secret pedophile files?

by poopie in

jw
friends

what do you think there hiding?.

_Morpheus

Fisher, it took you 24 hours to come up with that?

Give it a rest. Your foaming at the mouth trying to defend the indefensible. You seem duty bound to defend the org at all costs. You have reached for strawmen in virtually every post and when not setting up strawmen your attempting to bury any possible discussion under a torrent of verbal vomit.

I surrender my don quixote quest to have a reasonable and coherent discussion with you on this topic. Fear not, your watchtower windmill of infallibility is safe.

10

"entitled" talks

by road to nowhere in

one thing that bugs the heck out of me is the exclusive use of entitled when offering the name of any talk or article.

can;t it ever be "on the subject of", named, titled, called, about or anything else.. i guess technically it is a correct usage, but entitled always (to me) means gives the idea of being in a special privelege, having a right to something or such..

_Morpheus

Entittled is a proper, reconized word with a standard usage commonly accepted by all english dictionaries.

Irregardless is none of the above.

24

Science corner

by The Real Edward Gentry in

jw
friends

on other boards and new sites they are talking about contact with aliens in the next 20 years.

i think that would be reckless and dangerous.

how could you tell if it was a genuine space alien and not a demon?

_Morpheus

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ifaoKZfQpdA

10

"entitled" talks

by road to nowhere in

one thing that bugs the heck out of me is the exclusive use of entitled when offering the name of any talk or article.

can;t it ever be "on the subject of", named, titled, called, about or anything else.. i guess technically it is a correct usage, but entitled always (to me) means gives the idea of being in a special privelege, having a right to something or such..

_Morpheus

indeed it is correct usage.

but i also think its overused... its just one of those things that every chairman repeats without thinking. its a bit of a word wisker, so to speak, and i do recall it being a little grating sometimes.

en·ti·tle

inˈtīdl,enˈtīdl/

verb

past tense: entitled; past participle: entitled

1.
give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.
"employees are normally entitled to severance pay"
synonyms: qualify, make eligible, authorize, allow, permit; More
2.
give (something, especially a text or work of art) a particular title.
"an article entitled “The Harried Society.”"
archaic
give (someone) a specified title expressing their rank, office, or character.
"they entitled him Sultan"
synonyms: title, name, call, label, head, designate, dub;
formaldenominate
"a chapter entitled “Comedy and Tragedy”"

11

stupid questions

by road to nowhere in

paragraph 4 today: "what are we gonna consider?

" maybe that is the article title?

the other is: "what will we consider next week?

_Morpheus

They have been doing that for some years now. Its part of the dumbing down of the information and i suspect also part of self indoctrination. Repetition over and over of simple ideas to make them stick.

94

why won't legal department simply release all the secret pedophile files?

by poopie in

jw
friends

what do you think there hiding?.

_Morpheus

ok so lets take this as you presented it...

"Anyone with a little common sense can figure out that someone that gets a ticket for disorderly conduct faces different legal consequences than someone who commits armed robbery. They are both crimes though and criminal procedure is exactly the same. "

fish, please try to remove some of the excess emotion from your remarks. When you start off by saying "anyone one with a little common sense" you seem to be taking a shot at me and suggesting that i lack common sense or perhaps that I'm talking to you as if i think you don't. Neither of those is the case. Im trying to have a respectful discussion, devoid of excess negative emotion.

as for your point, you are incorrect. they are both crimes yes but criminal procedure is not exactly the same. The burden of proof for disorderly conduct is different that for armed robbery.

"Child abuse is also a crime and treated just the same as any other crime. There is no special category for child abuse, it is in the same Penal Code with all the other crimes and classified as a Felony with all the other Felonies of the same rank. There is no difference."

this is also not entirely correct. In many jurisdictions there are special units set up to investigate child abuse. there are special laws regarding reporting child abuse and there are special procedures to investigate. there are even special laws to let children testify in court without facing the abuser. the law is rife with example of children being treated differently.

"Therefore, If a litigant can Supeona private church communications about child abuse to help his civil case, there is nothing special about that crime to somebody else that also wants church privacy files disclosed to help his case about non-child abuse, such as a prosecutor, a victim of a crime, the Federal government going after someone for tax fraud, etc"

i agree. and church communications can be and are subject to subpoena. you seem to be conflating the confidentiality of the confessional with other internal church communications. two very different things. also consider this:

"It’s important to understand the difference between clergy privilege and the duty of confidentiality. Privilege simply means the information cannot be shared in court. The duty of confidentiality applies in all contexts and is an ethical matter every minister must navigate carefully. A minister’s duty of confidentiality is breached when they disclose confidences to anyone, anywhere. However, there may be times when it is appropriate to share confidential information, under extreme circumstances where people may be killed or severely injured. There are only nine cases in the history of this country where a minister was sued for breaching the duty of confidentiality. Of those, only three of the cases found the minister civilly liable for sharing confidences. In the other six cases, the courts concluded there was no duty under the circumstances for the minister to keep the confidentiality. So it can be concluded that ministers who decide to share confidential information should not in most cases be held personally liable from a legal standpoint, but they certainly won’t be held legally liable for not sharing. The exception to this rule is child abuse. In 41 states clergy are mandatory reporters of suspected or known child abuse."

Fish, you have no legal precedent or concept upon which you are basing your argument. its feeling and emotion, ironically the very thing you are accusing others of...

Let me summarize.. i agree with you that past judicial cases absolutely should not be revealed or released. its fraught with legal and moral issues and innocents would undoubtably be harmed irreparably. but not all church communications are privileged. current law demands in many states that child abuse be reported over and above the confidentiality of the confessional.

what exactly are you arguing? are you agreeing with me that past cases have to remain sealed but future cases must be reported? do you have a different perspective all together? is there a way you can simply state your opinion without excess fluff or straw men?

94

why won't legal department simply release all the secret pedophile files?

by poopie in

jw
friends

what do you think there hiding?.

_Morpheus

fish, i understand im asking a lot. I really do.... but what is the point regarding your last post? Once again you claim you understand that crimes against children are different and then you seem to say they arnt by posting information regarding what class felony they fall under.

Broad classification under the penal code (ie felony vs misdemeanor ) isnt the same as the standard used to prove the alligation or the same as what evidance is acceptable in court etc etc. its a legal classification that generally denotes the type of punishment.

how does that, in any way, related to children being able to defend themselves or having the ablity to report a crime against themselves or even the ablity to comprehend that a crime has been committed against them?

You asked a seemingly simple question. I gave a simple answer showing that crimes against children are in fact different than any other crime and that our society reasonably expects them to be protected where they cannot protect themselves. I reasonably showed that this is different than any other crime and therefore requires that the confidentially of the clergy be breached.

Do you have a point?