I gathered that... what I meant was whats the actual link to the program... theres nothing on that site, as far as i can tell, but two articles *about* the documentary.
dorayakii
JoinedPosts by dorayakii
-
4
Documentory on Jehovahs "Knocking"
by Thinkagain inhas anyone seen the " knocking " on the watchtowernews.org
-
-
-
4
Documentory on Jehovahs "Knocking"
by Thinkagain inhas anyone seen the " knocking " on the watchtowernews.org
-
-
dorayakii
whats the link?
-
34
Dr Who
by mrsjones5 ini just saw the newest dr who...loved it, can't wait for the next episode.
are there any other dr who fans in the house?.
josie
-
-
dorayakii
I love the series, its a classic. Its been running since 1963 (it stopped airing in 1989 but there was a film in 1996). I'm so glad they brought it back to the BBC last year.
the cardboard robots and $1.98 special effects
Hahaha, I think they've done a pretty good job of it tho... the plastic dummies, the last "human" (the bitchy trampoline), the bug-eyed Slitheen... if they went back to all the old style of doing things then people would complain... i think they've done a much better job than the Star Trek: Enterprise team at continuity and getting a balance between
Just wait for episode 9 "The Empty Child" its really freaky...
Watch out for Richard "i-don't-believe-it" Wilson (if you know who he is)... John Barrowman, the Scot with a state-side accent... and Bruno Langley *swoon*... you've gotta love him...
Its an iconic show, quintessentially British, and its good to see bits of London onscreen for a change instead of New York and LA all the time... Really good to hear all the accents as well: Christopher Eccleson's northern accent, Billie Piper's mixed-up London Estuary accent and vocab, (although I was a bit worried when i heard Billie Piper was playing the newest companion). There'll be a strong female character later in the series. It mixes sci-fi, comedy and action, perfectly. Sometimes its a bit corny or weird, but its a bloody good show that knocks the socks off all the rest.
I don't want to give too much away, although an awful lot will be lost anyway on the US audience, lots and lots of cultural references and homages... The Doctor's ironic / dead-pan / dry humour is probably equally confusing for you too. What episode are you up to in the States?
-
22
42 LOGICAL FALLACIES (of the con artist)
by DannyHaszard inad hominem
ambiguity
also known as equivocation.
-
-
dorayakii
Let's start the ball rolling then shall we?
Example of FALSE ANALOGY (apples and oranges)
Reasoning book. Page 73 Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood? In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to "keep abstaining from . . . blood"? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?
There are many reasons why this is a false analogy (a more accurate descriptioin would be "ridiculous analogy"). A main reason is that taking a blood transfusion in no way resembles either intravenous feeding or the drinking of alcohol. A blood transfusion is a life saving medical treatment, and unless a doctor wanted to violate his Hippocratic Oath and risk his career, it is highly unlikely that a doctor would prescibe an alcohol transfusion or a poison transfusion or any other ridiculous analogies the WTS could think up.
Example of RED HERRING and TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT
Watchtower Website http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2000/6/22/diagram_01.htm
Is the Work of Jehovah's Witnesses Propagandistic?
Some opponents of Jehovah's Witnesses have accused them of spreading Zionist propaganda. Others have charged that the ministry of the Witnesses promotes Communism. Still others have claimed that the work of Jehovah's Witnesses promotes the ideals and interests of "American imperialism." And there are those who assert that the Witnesses are anarchists, fomenting disorder with the aim of changing the social, economic, political, or legal order. Obviously, these conflicting accusations cannot all be true.
The simple fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses are none of the above. The work of the Witnesses is carried out in faithful obedience to Jesus Christ's mandate to his disciples: "You will be witnesses of me . . . to the most distant part of the earth." (Acts 1:8) Their work focuses solely and exclusively on the good news of the heavenly Kingdom—God's instrument for bringing peace to the whole earth.—Matthew 6:10; 24:14.
This extract is loaded with different types of logical fallacy, but there is a clear red herring here. The word "propaganda" is so inextricably linked with Zionists, Communists and Imperialists, that it is very easy to assume that because JWs are not connected with them, they are therefore not involved in any kind of propaganda. Another way to look at it is to ask the question, what kind of propaganda did the Communists spread?... no doubt Communist propaganda. Therefore, mentionning any other organisation is irrelevant material because JWs could certainly not be said to spread the propaganda of Zionists, Communists or Imperialists, but might by some be said to spread their own propaganda.
Two wrongs make a right is also demonstrated in this short passage. The accusation that JWs spread prapaganda, is met with the statement "obviously, these conflicting accusations cannot all be true". Therefore, since the accusers are wrong, JWs must be right.
I've made an effort but I'm not so articulate this week. Does anybody have any more concrete examples to expose the different types of logical fallacy that the WTS use in their literature?
-
1
The Guardian newspaper amendment... personal, NOT religious reasons
by dorayakii insaturday march 4, 2006. the guardian .
the following correction was printed in the guardian's corrections and clarifications column, saturday march 11 2006. .
our assertion that margaret mcnamee, the mother of twins conceived from frozen eggs last year, had had her unfertilised eggs frozen for religious reasons was misinformed in the article below.
-
-
dorayakii
Saturday March 4, 2006
The Guardian
The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Saturday March 11 2006
Our assertion that Margaret McNamee, the mother of twins conceived from frozen eggs last year, had had her unfertilised eggs frozen for religious reasons was misinformed in the article below. Ms McNamee has asked us to point out that her reasons were purely personal and we are happy to do this.So we have yet another JW dutifully trying to protect the Society, afraid of bringing shame upon
Jehovah'sthe Society's name. As I read this amendment, it brought home to me how much the JWs think that people are watching them all the time, observing and scrutinising their every move. She must've panicked when she saw the orignal printed article in the Guardian. -
22
42 LOGICAL FALLACIES (of the con artist)
by DannyHaszard inad hominem
ambiguity
also known as equivocation.
-
-
dorayakii
This post is truly magnificent. I wonder if anyone could provide concrete examples (especially recent Watchtower quotations) that demonstrate in turn, each form of logical fallacy that the Society uses.
I can think of many examples, (for example "argumentum ad ignorantium" is clearly demonstrated when the Society attacks the theory of evolution as false, because it has not been proven true or accurate in all cases... and "division" is displayed in that the 144,000 = a group of people, and the little flock = a group of people, therefore the 144,000 = the little flock...) but I simply have no time or will-power this week to scour the latest issues of The Watchtower and Awake! searching for concrete examples of this type of faulty reasoning... sorry
-
20
Pedophile allowed to stand behind Constitution
by ohiocowboy inthis is wrong, wrong, wrong...what are they thinking???.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=oddlyenoughnews&storyid=2006-03-07t125604z_01_n06170434_rtrukoc_0_us-california-sex.xml.
san francisco (reuters) - a 22-year-old californian man who received oral sex from a sixteen-year-old girl should not be forced to register for life as a sex offender, the california supreme court ruled on monday.. the state's top court found that california denied vincent hofsheier equal protection under the law because those having intercourse in such circumstances would not be forced to register as lifetime sex offenders.. hofsheier appealed after being ordered to register his name on the list, which is shared with the public and carries significant stigma.. "requiring mandatory lifetime registration of all persons who, like defendant here, were convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17, but not of someone convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor of the same age, violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions," the court ruled.. "we perceive no reason why the legislature would conclude that persons who are convicted of voluntary oral copulation with adolescents 16 to 17 years old...constitute a class of 'particularly incorrigible offenders'... who require lifetime surveillance as sex offenders.".
-
-
dorayakii
There's only 6 years between them and they are both old enough to know what the hell they're doing. Unless there was rape involved, the law should quite frankly just butt it's ugly head out of the way and keep out of people's business.
The 22 year old is not a paedophile. In my opinion, statutory rape laws are very mixed up, and should be readjusted to fit into reality, not the other way around. Sexual interactions are a natural part of human existence and should no longer be viewed as some dirty practice, unless it is practiced in a perverted way by adults to children. The definition of "child" or "minor" needs to be clearly redefined to exclude late adolescence (16/17 is reasonable), and a moveable age range (of maybe 2 or 3 years) needs to be defined as to which combination of ages constitute "statutory rape".
Measures need to be put in place to protect real children from real paedophiles, instead of wasting time, money and energy, criminalising people like 18 year olds who sleep with 17 year olds, or 16 year olds who give consentual oral sex to 22 year olds.
Obviously the circumstances have to be taken into account, and the fact that they didnt have a relationship but met in an "Internet chat room" and were perhaps inebriated by "rum and orange juice" would also be a factor in determining whether this really was a crime.
It was not until 1975 that oral sex between consenting adults was decriminalized in California.
?? How ridiculous!! Are there any other states where this is still a crime?
-
37
Was Jesus sacrifice really a sacrifice?
by jambon1 ini would like to state firstly that i in no way intend to offend anyone.. its just when i was in the org i had major problems with the blood issue/death because of persecution.
many times we were taught that god does`nt ask us to do anything that he has`nt done himself.
now imagine everything the bible says about jesus really did happen.
-
-
dorayakii
Jesus' sacrifice was an AWESOME one.
Ok, we start off by believing this, just for a place to start... Jesus sacrifice was "awesome"... I can't argue with that. A person willingly giving themselves up to save others is truely an "awesome" act of heroism.
But He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.
So it ceases to become a sacrifice, because after 3 days he got back what he had before and more... plus he KNEW he was going to get this reward... Maybe if he had been in the dark as to whether or not he was going to live again, THEN it would have been a sacrifice... I wouldn't mind giving up 3 days of my life (but not in such a painful way) if it meant i was going to recieve huge rewards at the end of it.
Coming back to the pain and suffering aspect of it all... what the man Jesus went through (if he really existed as the Bible character) was an horrific experience by most people's standards, and i would not like to have gone through the same. However, it was not a special or elevated form of suffering. One should not let one's emotions over the suffering of one man, cloud the reality of painful existence in the world today. Jesus' suffering was no greater than the amount of suffering that people go through every minute of every hour of every day.
There were witnesses.
Ancient reports of witnesses i'm afraid are not really reliable. Many people of the Muslim, Hindu and other religions "witnessed" things that strengthened their faith, but would you say that that is proof that it actually DID happen? I doubt it.
By the way people still do blood sacrifices with animals but nothing can compare with Jesus'.
What do those animal blood sacrifices achieve except murdering animals for no reason?... and in some cases causing them great pain before slaughtering them?
What does God need with dead animals anyway? Does he smell the "restful odour" of burning/dead flesh and get satisfied? But all joking aside now... how on earth does this so-called ransom work anyway? A ransom is usually a sum paid to a thief to get back what the thief stole. Once the thief has got the ransom in his hands, he doesnt usually give it back in 3 days... and if we're talking about Jehovah being obliged to follow his own law here by agreeing to the ransom, why if he was not allowed to transgress his law by sparing Jesus, is he allowed to sneakily take back the ransom by other illegal means?
He came to set us free from sin. And free shall we be if we accept Him in His Glory and Grace.
What effects of that so called ransom have been seen? Usually, when the ransom money is given, the person being kidnapped is returned... ahaaaa, thats it... i have an explanation... the reason why Jehovah resurrected Jesus, nullifyin the sacrifice, was because even though the price was paid, Satan did not live up to his end of the bargain... Jehovah had to take back the figuative ransom money... It all becomes clear now...
The whole thing smacks of a fairytale... and not a very good one at that...
-
49
Historical Linguistics
by dorayakii ini just thought it would be interesting to give a bit of background on philology (the study of ancient linguistic texts) historico-linguistics (the study of the history and development of languages) and etymology (the history of individual words).
by analysing different languages, linguists were able to work out that many languages had a common root.
for instance, it was obvious that english, dutch, german, danish and swedish for example, are from a common root, because certain words closely resemble each other.. english drink.
-
-
dorayakii
One of the most fascinating things I find about etymology is the way that words in the Indo-European languages can tell us information about the kind of religion, culture and civilisation that the Proto-Indo-European people had in the Bronze Age of about 4000 BC… 6000 years ago!!!…
Linguists to ascertain whether a certain group of bronze-age people were sea faring, or were farmers, or were livestock herders. If words have cognates in all of the IE languages, then it is likely that the early Indo-Europeans knew about that particular concept. (On the other hand, if words were invented, or borrowed from neighbouring linguistic groups, that concept is likely to have been discovered/invented at a later date). From the linguistic evidence, we can make a series of 6 suppositions about these people…
1. Society. The Indo-Europeans were a semi-nomadic, patrilineal society of the Bronze Age. The people were organized in settlements (*weiks; English -wick "village"). Each *weiks probably had its own king (*rek's)… Skanskrit. “ Raj” , Latin “ regere " (to rule)," rex ", rectus (right, correct) Gaelic “ righ”, Gaul. -rix (in personal names, e.g. Vircingetorix ), German “Reich” (kingdom / empire), Old English “ rice " (kingdom), “riht " (correct / right).
2. Identity. The native name with which these people referred to themselves may have been *aryo- , meaning "noble people”.
Sanskrit-speaking invaders of India called themselves the “Aryas” meaning “belonging to the hospitable". Old Persian “ Ariya-“ Iranian “ eran” and Avestan “ airyan-” all meant “noble, honorable, respectable”. T he modern name for Persia “Iran” is also from this root.
The word “Aryan” has been tainted and distorted somewhat by Nazi ideology; because of the misunderstanding that “race” corresponded to language. This for the Nazis it came to mean a "member of a Caucasian Gentile race of Nordic type" . This distorted meaning caused linguists to replace it with the term “Indo-European”.
3. Religion. A third assumption is that they worshiped a God named *Dei-wo- Pater (Sky Father)
The principle deities for the early Indo-Europeans were the * deiw-os which meant "daylight", “sky”, "deity", "sun-god”, “sky-god”, "thunder-god".
For the Greeks, this became "dios" which was paletised to "Zeus" to become the name of the chief deity also called "Zeus pater", "the father of the daylight".
The Latinate people also had this deity, which they called a "deus" and after having borrowed from the developed mythology of the Greeks, they began to call their chief deity "diu-pater" meaning "god-father" or "god the father". This evolved in various dialects of Latin to "Jupiter" and "Iupeter". From Latin “deus”, French developed the word "dieu" meaning "god".
Also from this word, developed the Latin word for "day", "dies" from which we derive the word "diary" in English, and the Greek word “daimon” from which English derives the word “demon”.
In Italian, the god "Jupiter" is now called "Giove", and Jehovah is called "Geova" modelled after the English pronunciation. This often leads to much confusion and consternation if a foreign JW who is learning Italian, has a slip of the tongue and starts referring to "il dio vero, Giove" (the true God, Jupiter) instead of "il dio vero Geova" (the true God, Jehovah).
Closer to home, the Anglo-Saxon name for the god of the sky (later the god of war and thunder) was "Tiwes" also derived from this same PIE root *deiw-os. We therefore have "Tues-day", the day of the sky-god Tiwes. (Strangely it could also mean "the day of the day" as *deiw-os could have meant "day" as well as "sun-god").
Also from this same word we have Lithuanian "dievas", "a god", Latvian "dievs", "a god"; and Russian "divny", now meaning "wonderful" (but originally meaning "godly").
An even more interesting journey of this word is its journey to Sanskrit (the precursor to modern Indian languages). The speakers of Sanskrit had a plethora of Gods named "devah", and their principal deity was called "Dyauspita " meaning "heavenly father" (See how similar it is to Latin "Diu-pater", "Dius-pater", “Jupiter”).
And to top it off with the icing on the cake, in vulgar Latin, "divus" meant "divine one". The feminine form "diva" was passed onto Italian and came to mean "goddess", or "fine lady". This was then passed onto English where it came to its present meaning of "a distinguished female singer".
4. Domesticated / non-domesticated animals. A fourth supposition is that they probably were the first bronze-age people to domesticate the horse. They bred cattle and relied heavily on animal husbandry. They lived in a region inhabited also by wolves.
The wolf or *wlup-os (or *wluk-os) inhabited their habitat…
k-variety : Sanskrit “ vrkas ”, Greek “lykos”, Albanian “ ulk”, Russian “ volcica” , Lithuanian “ vilkas”…
p-variety : Latin “lupus”, French “loup”, German “ Wolf ” Old English “wuluf” / “wulf”… (remeber the "p" to "f" thing?... "pater" to "father"... "pod" to "foot"... "wul-p" to "wul-f")
From the PIE root *ekw-os (horse) comes Latin “equus”, Sanskrit “ asvah”, Greek “ hippos”, and Old Irish “ ech”. Old English cognate “eoh” was replaced by the Proto-Germanic *khursa- meaning, “to run” (course). This became Ol d English “ hursa”, then "horsa" and modern “horse”…
The original IE word *ekwos was also replaced in most of the other IE languages (Vulgar Latin “caballus” Welsh “ceffyl”, French “cheval”, German “Pferd” Slovak “kona”). I’ll have to do some more research as to what those replacements mean on a historico-linguistic level.
Cattle or *gwo-us were the most important animals to them, and the number of cows a man owned would be the measure of his wealth. The word "cow" in Old English was "cu", in German it is "Kuh"... in Sanskrit it was "gaus" , and originally, in PIE, it is theorised to be * gwous . (Sheep and goats were also kept, presumably by the less wealthy.)
What is more striking is that likely candidates for cognates have been found in many other non-PIE languages, notably Sumerian " gu " and Chinese " ngu " or " ngo ". Perhaps it was an onomatopoeic word imitative of the sound that the animal makes... "moo".. "ngu"... ???
5. Climate. They lived in a snowy climate, and they were familiar with large lakes, but not with oceans.
Indo-European *sniegwh-/*snoigwho produced Old English “ snaw ", Old High German “ sneo” , Old Frisian “ sne ” Middle Dutch “ snee” , Modern Dutch “ sneeuw” , German “ Schnee” .
Also, Greek “ nipha” , L. nix (genetive case “ nivis” ), French “neige”, Old Irish “ snechta ”, Welsh “ nyf” , Lithuanian “ sniegas ” Russian “ snieg'” and Slovak ” sneh”.
Many cognates of PIE *lak, meaning “lake” exist in IE languages, Irish “loch”, French “lac”, Greek “lakkos”, and Latin “ lacus”… but have no common word for “ocean”.
6. Technology. A last assumption, is that they invented the wheel during the Bronze age (just before the time when the first split in the Indo-European languages occurred).
I've always found it absolutely fascinating and amazing how you can see the resemplace of the PIE word *kwe-kwlo spoken 5500 years ago, to the Greek "ky-klo" / "cyclo" and to the Old English "hweo-gol" / "hweol" and eventually modern "wheel".
To think that bronze age humans invented this strange object, this… "wheel", and the word that they invented for it, "kwe-kwe" which just probably simply meant, literally "spin-spin", is still used by Western civilisation, 5500 years later in a variety of ways. This is the joy of historico-linguistics that really fires your imagination.
From all this linguistic information, linguists and historians were able to construct a hypothesis of what the society, identity, religion, climate, and technology of the Indo-European people were like. (In addition, to know that these people lived at or even before the time when Adam and Eve are said to be created in Genesis... and waaaay before Great Flood, and the supposed confusion of languages at Babel).
Their ancient society really comes to life in your mind, just by looking at a few common words... How amazing is that?!?!
-
49
Historical Linguistics
by dorayakii ini just thought it would be interesting to give a bit of background on philology (the study of ancient linguistic texts) historico-linguistics (the study of the history and development of languages) and etymology (the history of individual words).
by analysing different languages, linguists were able to work out that many languages had a common root.
for instance, it was obvious that english, dutch, german, danish and swedish for example, are from a common root, because certain words closely resemble each other.. english drink.
-
-
dorayakii
Well, mself and Leolaia basically said the same thing but in different ways... our terminology is a little different becuase there are several different approaches to looking at the phonemes.
You are really savvy when it comes to linguistics, are you a student of it or are you a linguistics amateur?
I'm a student of Linguistics