slimboyfat

Joined

• started 535 topics
• posted 17,549 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by slimboyfat

• 
  138

  LEAKED: WHQ Accounts: 2016-2020 Budget

  by Fay Dehr in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 1 of 5] https://youtu.be/g08tw2v3b4s.

  leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 2 of 5] https://youtu.be/rpceb5v0vbe.

  leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 3 of 5] https://youtu.be/2xa08ukc_6i.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Lett stasted that contributions increased by 15% during June and July 2015 following his appeal in May 2015. This internal video says that an extra $30 million was donated as a result of the appeal. This would suggest that WT usually collects something in the region of $100 million per month in donations, or $1.2 billion per year. That would mean JWs only contribute $150 each on average per year. Which seems very little, but plausible considering many JWs live in poor countries.

  For comparison Seventh Day Adventist collect $3.2 billion per year in donations, which works out at $160 per member. However it’s worth noting that Seventh Day Adeventist membership is much more skewed toward poor African countries than JWs. Adventists are largely absent from most of Europe, for example. So for them to contribute more per member than JWs is actually quite telling, and no doubt a result of their belief in tithing.
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  You seem confused. People are protected in law from discrimination on the basis of race, gender and sexuality. Racism and bigotry are not protected by law.

  That’s why it’s illegal for a business to refuse a mixed race couple.

  But not illegal for a business to refuse a racist.

  Obviously. For crying out loud.
• 
  11

  BOE letter 2018-06-01 Announcements

  by Fay Dehr in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Control freaks
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Let me get this straight, you believe businesses should be allowed to refuse mixed race couples? Really? You are aware this is illegal? I don’t think even the BNP support such a policy these days.

  You complain it would mean that people who don’t like gay marriage would need to make gay wedding cakes. So what? And people who don’t like black people need to serve black people too. Diddums. Get over it.

  The polling shows only 14% of Americans support the “right” to refuse gay customers. I’d say that’s a minority, and out of touch.

  But perhaps not surprising since JWs are the most homophobic religious group polled and that’s our background.
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  What about people in business who oppose mixed race marriages? Should they be allowed to refuse to make cakes for mixed race couples? If it’s against their “beliefs”?

  Thank goodness such prejudice is supported by a vanishingly small segment of the population now - only 14% support prejudice against 72% on the side of customers doing nothing more offensive than getting married.

  Amazing how out of touch this forum is.

  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker-poll/most-americans-oppose-businesses-refusing-to-serve-gay-people-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1J02WN

  New research shows nearly 5% of people now identify as gay, rising to 8% among millennials - refutation of the nonsense on this forum a few months ago about gay population be “exaggerated” and only 2% or some such rubbish.

  https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/05/23/same-sex-marriage-poll-americans/638587002/
  
• 
  2

  Blood Directive

  by Phoebe in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  is there a new blood form to fill out?

  maybe it's been mentioned here and i've missed it but when they were chasing me with the gdpr, they also mentioned they wanted to me to fill out a new blood directive.

  not that they'll be chasing me for much longer ;).

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I’m glad to see his videos back up, but I don’t find Mark terribly lucid or analytical. I’d hold judgment on whether this form represents anything new.
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Celebrating a wedding is not offensive. If a business owner thinks otherwise and wants to discriminate on the basis of his beliefs then he’s the one who’s got a problem. He can have those beliefs all he wants but he should not be allowed to use a business to project that prejudice in public. Why? Because it’s rightly against the law to discriminate in a public setting on the basis of race, gender or sexuality. You can’t refuse a service because someone is black and you can’t refuse a service because someone is gay. It’s really incredibly simple.

  People comparing a wedding cake to asking someone to collaborate in making something offensive need to have a talk with themselves. It’s a wedding cake. Get a grip.

  This forum may be a bastion for prejudiced views (down to 17%, quite a minority) but thank goodness society is headed is a completely different direction. Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.

  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker-poll/most-americans-oppose-businesses-refusing-to-serve-gay-people-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1J02WN
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  If you are a business, how can you refuse to make a cake for someone’s wedding, if your business is making wedding cakes? On the grounds that you don’t agree with their sexuality? How can that be legal? I think reactionaries probably ought to enjoy their victory here while it lasts, because it surely can’t stand. It’s no different than a hotel owner claiming they are at liberty to refuse other races as guests if they wish. An argument that isn’t likely to impress many people these days,
• 
  22

  Only one real point per WT study...

  by JW_Rogue in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  has anyone else noticed that in the wt study articles the main point they want you to remember is always somewhere around paragraph 11-14?

  it's like a formula.

  intro and overview paragraphs 1-4. basic wt stuff 5-8 (not controversial).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Let me get straight to the point here. Yes you are correct. This is a true observation you have made.
• 
  36

  I've graduated at last

  by fulltimestudent in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after a bit of a kerfuffle over a procedural matter, my university has awarded me a degree.

  (the procedural problem was caused by my independent selection of what i wanted to study).

  award : bachelor of arts.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Those look like some very interesting topics you covered.