Posts by boa

36

What is up with Kirk Cameron?

by Markfromcali in

i think that's his name - you know the kid from that show growing pains?

i knew he was in the left behind movie and i think maybe another apocalyptic one, but then i saw him on some evangelical show talking about how to 'witness' to people, spouting a simplistic 'technique' of showing how people are sinners against the 10 commandments and then telling them you can be saved.. one thing that stands out is i could swear his acting in gp was more convincing than this spaced out kinda look he had in this show.

you know the look i'm talking about?

boa

Cripes that site sucked....The way the test q's are worded, I pretty much failed every one...Even the murder one wasn't clear cut on how you break the commandment it seemed

Icky icky Kirky Cameron....

11

more ewatchman blarney

by czarofmischief in

in conclusion, the final part of the days is a concluding period of time, exactly as the expression implies, during which jehovah disciplines and refines his people and afterwards brings the world into judgment with himself.

contrary to the watchtower's teaching, the world-ending finale known as the final part of the days has not commenced yet.

i'm not going through his tiresome essays, once again, but his latest has come to exactly the same conclusion that all the others have: watch out!

boa

cripes....I'm exjw and I still believe in the wts view of right and wrong!!! Doesn't everyone?

boa....ya right, and I also think e-watchman is out there with his own personal sect...I like to go there everyone once in a while just to be reminded of how awful even apostate-jwism is....

13

Is this term a witness or "apostate" saying?

by freedom96 in

jw
friends

i was talking to a work associate the other day.

i referred to someone as not being da'd or df'd.

he paused, chuckled, and said he had never heard that term before.. he has been an elder for twenty years.. i related the story to my wife, and she suggested that maybe those terms are "apostate" and not circulated around the hall.

boa

Definitely used Deffed as a dub though I don't recall ever using DA(d). When in dubbieland with the dubs, under the umbrella of the gb and wts, I remember that anyone who DAd was way worse than a DF'd person cuz they were rejecting the troof. They were purposely leaving the KH? My word, that is just so independent and they were obviously the spawn of Satan, commonly known as the 'other' big guy in the sky, though not too high in the sky cuz his ride got stuck on planet erf.

boa....not df'd or da'd (yet lol)

I wonder if I could get df'd and while they make the announcement at the hall, I run up to the podium, grab the mike and tell 'em all, YOU CAN"T DF me cuz I QUIT! I'm DAing MYSELF! Then in my best evil debbil voice do a legendary MUHAHAHAHA..............

45

Do You Think We Are Helping Witnesses Get Out Thru This Forum?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i am curious , especially since we have so many new ones here, as to how many actually left the organization because of this board or others similar to it.

i certainly would hope that we are making a dent in the jw organization by what we do here......,

boa

Put another chalk mark up for this forum being an instrumental first stop for me being able to put my thoughts, doubts, and concerns into one focal point which gave me the strength to leave the org...

It was here at this site that I heard of COC for the first time and I immediately got it from the library (a little nervously I admit) and 4 days later - it was all OVER!

This may seem fast but I was heading out for years, and just didn't know exactly where it was heading.

For a long time Dan the Man, I was #3 and thought that would be me forever.....

Torch, Welcome to jwd!

boaboy

13

Theocratic Ministry School in the resumé?

by observador in

i was doing a quick search on something else when i came across this resume of a fella who seemed to have been a bethelite.

down on his resume under "education", he includes the theocratic ministry school as part of his education.

this is not the first time i hear someone doing this.

boa

Yuppers, done it.....

And I'm oh sooooooo proud of it too!

boa......sheesh

140

Should Hand Held Cell Phones be Outlawed While Driving??

by minimus in

jw
friends

i use a cell all the time.

some states want to outlaw the use of these phones while driving....got an opinion on that?

?

boa

AlanF

Boa, I agree with you and Jahna that in principle the best way to handle this issue, and other driving issues, would be to better enforce existing laws against stupid behavior. The problem is between principle and practice. Let me give you an example.

I see this kind of thing constantly. I have yet to see a cop do anything about it. They're far more likely to give you a ticket for passing on the right, or for speeding up to pass, than to ticket the culprits who create dangerous situations in the first place.

Given all this, how would you propose to educate the police and most drivers better? How would you deal with a court situation where, if the drivers I described above were ticketed for being distracted, and their defense to the judge was, "But your honor! I wasn't doing anything dangerous! I was driving well under the speed limit!" Remember that most judges are extremely conservative and equate slow driving with safe driving.

I concur police are far more likely to lay a charge on something that is easily defendable in court and 'Drive Without Due Care and Attention' is not so easily defined or defended. At the same time, I suppose the charge could be laid and as evidence, either an admission by the driver or the officer's observation would be used.

On the other hand, there are many many specific laws on the books that are difficult or frustrating to enforce and a cell-phone law may sound like the answer but would be a pain in the ass to deal with since a glance by a cop driving past someone could be anything held up to the ear. Or, the phone could conveniently dissappear long before an officer got turned around and went through all the effort to stop the alleged violator.

The only real use for such a law would be when erratic driving is noticed by an officer AND he is able to without reasonable doubt PROVE a cell phone was at the ear of the driver at the time. If he can do this much, he could also lay the other, already existing charge. To me, a cell phone ban would mostly be an ad campaign that would educate more people to the dangers of their use while driving which in turn may prevent some accidents, not necessarily a bad thing on the surface, but then ALL use is forbidden and there are times as discussed at length where I think it is an acceptable risk.

boa....who thinks slow drivers should be banned.....especially those who try to enforce the law (not their GD job!) by driving exactly the speed limit in the LEFT lane! Even the police say - DON'T DO THIS!

96

587 BC for Total Dunderheads

by Farkel in

if you're a dunderhead on neo-babylonian history (like me) you've probably remained totally clueless whenever the subject of the chronology leading to back 607 b.c.

since i had nothing better to do today, i decided to finally take the time it takes to understand why dub chronology on that date is wrong.

this piece of information alone should give you a clue about how bored i am!.

boa

Atilla - I concur with your conclusion stating JC's length of post to prove anything relevant to people strains believability that a god could expect 'people of the earth' to understand.

Scholar....The thing I love about your 607 posts, besides the absolute thrashing you always receive, is that the BIBLE chronology is touted as this most awesomest reason to believe the retarded calculation up to the year 1914, HOWEVER, the bottom line is that the absolute chronological year of 539 is critically necessary to have a starting point in the relative chronology of the Bible. Now, all dubbie apologists will have to admit this, THEN look like total weiners when they reject the massive mountain of evidence for OTHER dates for the destruction of Jerusalem with NO historical, absolute evidence for 607!

Somehow, I think you don't even believe this yourself its so crazy an idea.

boa

140

Should Hand Held Cell Phones be Outlawed While Driving??

by minimus in

jw
friends

i use a cell all the time.

some states want to outlaw the use of these phones while driving....got an opinion on that?

?

boa

Amen Jahna!

140

Should Hand Held Cell Phones be Outlawed While Driving??

by minimus in

jw
friends

i use a cell all the time.

some states want to outlaw the use of these phones while driving....got an opinion on that?

?

boa

Let's cut to the chase here, Boa. Basically, we agree on all the important points except whether governments should restrict cell phone use by drivers. I should add that I'm glad that you're actually addressing issues rather than evading them, like certain other posters are.

Why, thank you! I figured I stepped in this with both eyes open and with a cell phone in hand, so I'd better answer the qs.

:: Why do you think there's any difference between laws against murder, drunk driving and smoking in public places (which stop people from hurting others unnecessarily and impinging on others' freedom) and laws against using cell phones while driving (which stops people from hurting others unnecessarily and from impinging on others' freedom not to be hurt by stupid actions)?
: Because it comes down to degree.
Precisely my point! But deciding degree is a matter of opinion. In the case of society, government's role is to decide on the degree of various actions that might be proposed to be restricted.

I believe in the end, the whole point of this matter, everything having been said is the part 'deciding degree is a matter of opinion'.

No matter what, this is a grey area that some jurisdictions make into a black and white enforcement issue by enacting a new law. It is like most of the other 1000s of laws out there. They simply make it possible for a government to exercise control over a person or the population for their own reasons. These laws are not inheirent to this universe, they are arbitrary and manufactured by people.

All of the posts showing studies, against the evils of cell phone use and how they are this percentage worse than drinking coffee or playing with yourself while driving don't in the mean a hill of beans to the real issue which is responsible driving. A person can have all the rules in the world but if they don't follow them or some new technology arrives (in-car dvd players are becoming an issue in Canada), driving is still a dangerous, risked-filled endeavour! If people think driving will be oh so much safer with another rule against cell phone use in cars (while driving), they are sadly mistaken. I do agree that such a law will affect at least some of the population who may not be aware of the dangers of cell use while driving and these possibly law-abiding, concerned citizen types will comply. Idiots who don't care will continue to use them and to me I stand by the law that already exists of 'driving without due care and attention as being sufficient'.

Thus, it is obvious I am in agreement that enforcement of improper or dangerous use of a cell phone while driving IS necessary because it is one of thousands of things you can do in a car that are distracting. I just don't agree with a special new law to address it. The existing laws would allow for the important use of a cell phone for those who can do so in whatever conditions make it an tolerable risk (law enforcement officers is one example of those who need several different forms of communication while driving), tow trucks, ambulance, fire, taxis, commercial drivers, transit buses, real estate agents etc. AND allow for enforcement of those who if they cannot decide to not use the cell, or do anything else they shouldn't because of conditions, they are crap drivers or whatever,

: You ARE allowed to drink and drive in many jurisdictions including BC up to .08 blood/alcohol level. You are allowed to smoke in public places all over the world, though many jurisdictions restrict doing so inside buildings, planes, restaurants.
Right, but I'm talking about impaired to the degree that most everyone would agree is over the top. And who is it that decided on these standards? Government officials. For whatever reason, they've decided that .08 blood alchol should be the dividing line between legally DUI and not. There has to be some definite line; otherwise no one could objectively decide whether a person was impaired or not. By impaired, I certainly don't mean something black and white, but something with shades of gray. This dividing line is not arbitrary, but has been chosen based on the experience of officials who've measured the performance of people who've drunk alcohol. I think that everyone would agree that a blood level of .5 would be way too high. So who would you propose to set the line? You? Me? How about the government officials we pay to make such decisions?

As you said above, we basically agree on most points. I would add that it wouldn't surprise me that many laws and 'dividing lines' are decided somewhat arbitrarily, though I don't have anything to back this up.

You seem not to like dividing lines, and I agree that they often don't make sense, but they're still necessary. That's why the legal dividing line between adult and child is 18 years of age, and there's another one at age 21 for drinking alcohol and smoking. Without objective dividing lines like this, it would be impossible to decide about many important things.

Its not just that I don't like dividing lines, its the thought by many in the general population who are fooled into the 'big brother knows better' and 'laws make a better country and civilization, thus more laws must make an even betterer country'. I believe in personal responsibility and think our society (yours and mine are not that different in this) has gone WAY too far in allowing people to not take responsibility for their actions. (If you're into Sci-fi at all AlanF, read that LeModessit Jr. book Gravity Dreams - its awesome!)

: Cell phones are not black and white dangerous all the time for everyone.
Nor is a blood alcohol level of .08. The point is that a degree of impairment occurs in both situations. Government has a responsibility to determine where to draw an objective dividing line.

Indeed, I concur.

There's an obvious difference between using alcohol and cell phones while driving. You can drink varying degrees of alcohol, but there are no degrees of cell phone use: either you're connected or you're not. That's why the dividing line with respect to cell phone use has to be either you're allowed to use it or you're not. Surely you wouldn't propose testing people for ability to multitask.

This is where I believe the existing laws should be enforced thus allowing a person to take responsibility for his/her actions behind the wheel. Some use of cell phones by qualified and competent drivers is an acceptable risk to me.

It's obvious that many people are severely impaired when they drive while talking on a cell phone. Do you think that they should be allowed to endanger other people? I don't. If you do, then please explain why.

I agree with the first, and repeat that enforcement of existing laws is sufficient.

I guarantee that if your ox were gored by some asshole driving while on a cell phone, you'd have no difficulty agreeing that such dangerous action should be prohibited, the same as you'd be outraged if your kid were killed by a drunk driver.

LOL....I had to read that a few times and still think its a funny (as in ha ha ) illustration. However, emotional appeal to my family member's safety won't change the fact that a law exists which could work for enforcing cell phone use while driving. And that the government has decided that a certain part of the population SHOULD'NT drink AT ALL and drive because they would be too impaired but IT IS STILL LEGAL from the purely technical standpoint. Now, if such a person had an accident, killed someone, and then was test/recorded for alcohol in the blood, it could become a part of a court case convicting that person of 'manslaughter due to dangerous driving' but they would still be innocent of breaking the blood/alcohol limits. These are the things government rather anonymously takes upon itself to decide that SOME alcohol in your blood while driving is allowed.

Some people are able to drive fairly well while talking on a cell phone. But governments need to set standards that are objectively applicable to the average person. That's why speed limits are set very low in the U.S. and Canada. U.S. and Canadian drivers are generally atrocious, and not well able to drive at speeds that, say, Germans generally have no trouble with. Setting a limit of 160 kph is no problem in Germany, but would increase the death toll hugely in the U.S. and Canada. BTW, I tend to drive at 20-25 kph over the limit, so I'm not arguing this point from a conservative driving viewpoint. I tend to scare people with speed. :-)
: It comes down to acceptable risk for governments.

I wholeheartedly agree with you and btw, so do I, though, I'm not sure how scared they are. Do long silences mean my passengers are scairt?

Exactly. And I'm proposing that governments should declare that drivers impaired by using cell phones present unnecessary risks to others.

This is very clear, and we both agree there should be a law addressing this. I'm merely saying that law exists already in a more general way and should be enforced.

: If I get the feel of what you are saying, then you should also support a complete ban on driving over 50km/h because if we all did that and it was enforced, virtually NO people (out of tens of thousands in NA) would be killed in cars EVER again!
Not at all, because to me (and obviously to most governments) the risks of high speed driving don't outweigh the benefits. If it were up to me, speed limits would be about 25% higher. On the other hand, the risks of talking on a cell phone while driving don't outweigh the benefits. If you disagree, then explain exactly what benefits you get, and weigh them against the demonstrated risk that you'll kill someone. In particular, account for the fact that it's a lot harder to spot a driver at the .08% blood alcohol limit than it is to spot a driver impaired by a cell phone, and explain why the severe impairment imparted by cell phone use is ok and the less severe impairment of the .08% limit isn't. Or do you think that the limit should be raised to be commensurate with the risks of cell phone use?

This is the part where it is difficult to compare the two examples for me. I believe governments are watching very closely the whole issue and making judgements that either agree with you by making a new law, or disagree and leave things as they are. These people are paid way more money than I, are better informed, and probably most of them are tons smarter so I'll leave it up to them to decided in the end and follow it the best I can. At this point I believe cell phone use while driving is an action that has certain risk that varies widely depending on a number of factors, so an erratic driver should be dealt with by existing laws (I know, a broken record that is).

:: Where does your freedom to swing your arm end?
: How far out are you allowed to stick your nose to get in the way of my swinging arm?
Please answer the question.

My Q to your Q was just a sass lol. I believe that personal freedoms between any two people or groups of people in a society like ours will always clash over certain things. As long as there is 'freedom' in a society, it will be a tug of war between the so-called rights of individuals vs. the masses. Democratic governments are a good example of this. The Man is always trying to increase its power and control over the population while the Masses have a check/balance to take away some of those powers (I'm not a political animal so its a very 'seat of the pants observation'). Orgs like the dubs worked their collective New York asses off over the years to secure all kinds of 'freedom of religion and how we worship' rights, yet, they have become one of the WORST for taking such rights away from its own members, especially after baptism.

boa.....jeeeeez....are we done now?

140

Should Hand Held Cell Phones be Outlawed While Driving??

by minimus in

jw
friends

i use a cell all the time.

some states want to outlaw the use of these phones while driving....got an opinion on that?

?

boa

AlanF,

boa says whooooah there....

This started out as a q requested what I assumed would be the opinions of the masses on this board about whether cell phone should be outlawed while driving and it appears to be going past that....

I will succintly state my answer to this question:

No, I don't thing they should be outlawed. Big brother already has enough damn rules getting in the way of personal choice IMO.

Yes, I believe that law enforcement personel should use the laws that exist, namely, Driving Without Due Care and Attention to penalize any driving offenses that are unsafe and don't have some other charge. This law already exists likely in most jurisdictions.

Now, I thought that I was basically agreeing with you before AlanF other than the part about how black and white drinking and driving AND using cell phone during driving is. It is obvious to use your term that driving while 'drunk' is NOT black and white, it is entirely GREY. Governments decide the definition of 'drunk' (in BC it is a blood/alcohol reading of .08) and other jurisdictions differ.

I think you're missing a basic point, boa: Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

I believe you are correct here. I didn't realize this we were going so far past the threads q into your statement above. The obvious point though in relation to the thread is that cell phones have been around for some time now and only lately are some jurisdictions making special legislation about them. There are many things that we all do that are currently not legislated and infringe on others rights. Hell, a great example is the right to 'trespass' on private property with a largely unwanted message that witnesses have fought for so long to secure. It is apparently considered by most governments to be a tolerable breach of privacy.

In other words, freedoms cannot be absolute when your freedom puts others at unnecessary risk or infringes on their freedoms.

I agree with the first, however, the question is what things are decided as 'unnecessary' risk and who the hell decides? My freedom to drive a car puts others at risk. Big brother has decided to issue me the privilege regardless of what anyone else may think about this 'risk'.

A good example is wearing a motorcycle helmet. I don't care a bit if someone wears one or not, or kills himself or not. If he kills himself, I'll chalk it up to natural selection in action. But if I'm affected in any way, then I'm certainly going to care. If my insurance rate goes up because morons are injuring and killing themselves because they won't wear helmets, then they're infringing on my rights. Same goes for seatbelts.

I have always thought this and agree totally.

Smoking in public places is another good example. Thirty years ago nonsmokers like me had to endure inhaling other peoples' poisonous smoke. We could do nothing about it, because it was accepted by society in general. I don't care if people smoke or not (I have plenty of good friends who smoke, btw), as long as they don't do it so that I can't get away from it or when it infringes on my freedom to inhale reasonably clean air. While most of my smoking friends have the decency and common sense to smoke outside my home, without my having to tell them, plenty of smokers don't. That's why laws have been enacted prohibiting these people without common decency and common sense from smoking in public places.

Again, I am totally in agreement with this as well. Society has made the changes because and only because of public pressure though. It isn't just because government want to look after your health by saving you from second hand smoke is it? Governments are the greatest benefactors of the act of smoking. If health care was really really cheap, hell, they'd probably encourage tons of smoking and other drugs.

Note that I was talking about illegal drugs, or any drugs that impair one's ability to handle machinery properly.

Not a prob....I actually was going off into general commentary later in my last post, I should have made that more clear. Though of course 'illegal' is a moot grey point - big brother decides whats legal unless you're in Jersey where everything is legal as long as you don't get caught.

Now answer these questions:
Do you think it should be legal to drive under the influence of alcohol or any other drugs that impair your ability to drive without injuring others? State your reasons.

Do I? I have a problem with understanding what 'impair' is exactly. If I say it means any possible reduction in ability to drive, then it is an impossible standpoint to defend much less enact. Having a big fight with the wife and then driving may impair judgement. Lack of sleep definitely impairs judgement - how much of a lack of sleep is allright? NONE? Well, we're all effed then, the economies of every nation will crumble if that one is enforced. Thus, I would like to say No it shouldn't be legal if Yes we can define at what point others are at risk of being injured. I'm not trying to be smart here!

Do you think that all people are capable of judging whether they're impaired?

No.

If many people are incapable of judging their state of impairedness, how should governments control them? Note that one of the main functions of government should be to stop people from hurting each other, such as putting in place laws to prevent murder and thievery.

Yes, they try with laws. They are largely a poke in the dark when it comes to traffic in my experience.

Do you think that laws against murder and thievery are unfair infringements on people's freedom?

Only when I want to kill someone and they deserve it! lol Seriously, of course this is reasonable. (like me )

Do you think that smokers should be allowed to impinge on my freedom to breath clean air in public places?

Already answered above. No, they should not. Though I've heard from a course I took on vehicle emissions that one study about pollution put cigarette smoke at 1% of the pollutants in the Los Angeles basin!

Why do you think there's any difference between laws against murder, drunk driving and smoking in public places (which stop people from hurting others unnecessarily and impinging on others' freedom) and laws against using cell phones while driving (which stops people from hurting others unnecessarily and from impinging on others' freedom not to be hurt by stupid actions)?

Because it comes down to degree. You ARE allowed to defend yourself, usually with at least as much force/threat as you are faced with (in Canada anyway) up to killing someone. You ARE allowed to drink and drive in many jurisdictions including BC up to .08 blood/alcohol level. You are allowed to smoke in public places all over the world, though many jurisdictions restrict doing so inside buildings, planes, restaurants. But you can get 2nd hand smoke outside, you can rent a car that has been smoked in and no doubt other 'public' places. Cell phones are not black and white dangerous all the time for everyone. It comes down to acceptable risk for governments. If I get the feel of what you are saying, then you should also support a complete ban on driving over 50km/h because if we all did that and it was enforced, virtually NO people (out of tens of thousands in NA) would be killed in cars EVER again! Yet, governments decide the degree of danger for different roads and the general driving populations skill and probly a shyteload of other reasons, the biggest one likely being the economy and allow much higher speed limits greatly increasing the carnage and death on our highways.

Where does your freedom to swing your arm end?

How far out are you allowed to stick your nose to get in the way of my swinging arm?

boa