Fisherman

Joined

• started 155 topics
• posted 5,295 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Fisherman

• 
  44

  Shoud individuals be held responsible for their INACTION?

  by nicolaou in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you see someone about to be struck by a car or otherwise step into harms way but choose not to call out a warning or act in some way to prevent disaster, are you responsible for any harm caused?.

  what defence, if any, can be offered for choosing inaction?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  For nearly a minute her eyes begged him before her strength failed and her face turned to the sky.

  Sadly, other children die every day too; what is disturbing about this story is the 'monster's' apparent "inaction".

  It is human nature to help. I would have. As the storty is told, there seems to be no moral defense to justify the idleness. But I would need to hear the monster's reasons for doing nothing in this specific instance. Suppose the child was baby Hitler? Suppose it was the child of an oppresive slave owner who was also the child of an oppresive slave owner? -And the monster was an oppressed slave.

  The way the laws are crafted in the US, an innocent person can rot for decades of time in jail and more and innocent people can be pressured by prosecuters to compromise a plea or face years and years of legal proceedings and expensive legal fees or risk being convicted of a crime he did not commit -Isn't that being a monster too? Now suppose you were this man and you had been falsley convicted of harming a child and served decades in jail, you come out and there is a Court Order that you stay away from children, all the while you being innocent as Jesus; you pull the child out of the water and it so happens that the child was sexually abused -guess who is going to jail? OR, You call for help and you are accused of trying to drown the child or with your luck, guess what, the child was sexually abused and you are accused.

  You need to KNOW all of the facts when deciding what is just and good and labeling someone a monster.
  
  
• 
  44

  Shoud individuals be held responsible for their INACTION?

  by nicolaou in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you see someone about to be struck by a car or otherwise step into harms way but choose not to call out a warning or act in some way to prevent disaster, are you responsible for any harm caused?.

  what defence, if any, can be offered for choosing inaction?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  believers in a god who chose inaction.

  Things are not always what they appear, just look at the sun. --This is what this sanctification of God's name is all about. God must answer accusations against him being idle.
  
  
• 
  44

  Shoud individuals be held responsible for their INACTION?

  by nicolaou in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you see someone about to be struck by a car or otherwise step into harms way but choose not to call out a warning or act in some way to prevent disaster, are you responsible for any harm caused?.

  what defence, if any, can be offered for choosing inaction?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  The council had not performed checks on the tree for over a year and a half - that was their inaction and an inqest was opened.

  That's different story. That could be negligence but there is no intention to cause harm involved; it was an accident. But let's say you saw someone in peril, for example, you saw someone drowning a couple of feet away from you, and with zero risk to yourself, you did not throw a rope or a lifesaver that was nearby or even attempt to help, you simply walked away. In this case, you could be morally responsible; but should you be held legally responsible is the issue that I was responding to in my previous post.
  
  
• 
  44

  Shoud individuals be held responsible for their INACTION?

  by nicolaou in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you see someone about to be struck by a car or otherwise step into harms way but choose not to call out a warning or act in some way to prevent disaster, are you responsible for any harm caused?.

  what defence, if any, can be offered for choosing inaction?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  "Am I my brother's keeper?"

  I would instinctively and most people would too; and who wouldn't? It is human nature to do so. But there are a lot of different circumstances and things can get complicated with laws governing everything. I don't think that laws should force people to be good Samaritans.
• 
  6

  DNA Editing Now Geting Easy Thanks To CRISPR, Welcome A New Species: Homo Evolutis

  by Brokeback Watchtower in

  1. social
  2. current

  now that it is 1)easy to make edits in dna, 2) the invention of the quantum computer, 3)advanced algorhyms, 4)mass collection of dna code we should be able to change homo sapiens to homo evolutis.

  i see a singularity coming.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nimj6snpq-o.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  marked
• 
  340

  Calling Cofty and others regarding evolution

  by dubstepped in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.

  i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.

  i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  It gets murky sometimes. Hard to tell if it’s a bold-faced lie or just extreme ignorance?...

  Paleontologists have yet to discover any transitional fossils between complex invertebrates and fish, and this destroys the whole evolutionary story.
  
• 
  340

  Calling Cofty and others regarding evolution

  by dubstepped in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.

  i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.

  i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  While resultant species believed to have evolved are evident, no one has ever come up with fossils of transitional species or a chain of evolving transitional species all connected to the resultant. Also, take the human being, there are no surving transitionals, only the final result. Hence, everything roaming the earth is a resultant species from the mechanics of the evolutionary process. But there should also be around the other species that connect everything together. There aren't any. --There are a lot of explanations though.
• 
  57

  Matthew 24:34 NEW UNDERSTANDING (January 2018 JW Broadcasting)

  by Alfred in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  david splane explains newest understanding" of 'this generation" adding a 3rd group.... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  ....The anointed flesh will not, should never be saved....

  All comentary.

  WT "this generation" teaching stands valid based on the definition of generation as wt applies the definition to the 2 annointed groups. And that's that.
  
  
• 
  57

  Matthew 24:34 NEW UNDERSTANDING (January 2018 JW Broadcasting)

  by Alfred in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  david splane explains newest understanding" of 'this generation" adding a 3rd group.... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  No, that is not understood by any definition of a generation except the convoluted WT definition

  Besides your remarks, you have not invalidated WT teaching of "this generation" as not conforming to the definition of generation.
  
  
• 
  57

  Matthew 24:34 NEW UNDERSTANDING (January 2018 JW Broadcasting)

  by Alfred in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  david splane explains newest understanding" of 'this generation" adding a 3rd group.... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  I knew my great grandfather!

  My great great grandmothers and grandfathers were around until I was around six. My great grandmother's sister lived till mid 1990's.