An interesting article here on the scope of the criminal law on 'insult' and 'defamation' in Croatia in the context of digital platforms. Irrespective of all the jurisdictional issues in Lloyd's claimed case, the courts are mindful that there is a constitutional principle of freedom of expression and so prioritises the public interest of anything said.
digderidoo
JoinedPosts by digderidoo
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
digderidoo
I recall when he first came on the scene.
He and others placed ex and fading JWs into a Facebook group (at a time when Facebook allowed you to do that) as a way of building up his base (obviously now client base). At that time, Facebook settings allowed all the friends of those placed into the group to see that they belonged to his exjw group (can't recall what it was called). It resulted in many faders being 'outed' and some disfellowshipped.
He never took ownership of the consequences of what he did back then, continually deflected and became extremely defensive of anyone who dared to criticism him. I recall his squirming and conditional apologies on here.
This was before his Youtube channel. He has continued with the same modus operandi ever since. The guy can never take responsibility and always attacks others. This latest one is no surprise.
-
49
What Were You or Someone You Knew Counseled For That Was Ridiculous?
by minimus inback in the day, tons of witnesses were brought in the “back room “ to be counseled by elders because of their dress and grooming.
some elders frowned on mustaches or hair that went past a certain point on a male.
women were regularly harassed because their skirt was too long or too short or had a slit on the side.
-
-
digderidoo
Five of us camped on a campsite for a Convention, all around 19-21 years old. It was one of those campsites the JWs takeover at Convention time, so there was alot there. We had a laugh one evening and into the night - nothing major happened, we just had fun, laughed alot and we were in bed around 10.30pm.
Over the following week we were hauled individually into the back library room for counselling, for bringing reproach on Jehovah's name. We ate humble pie, apologised and promised that we wouldn't have fun again at Convention time.
-
7
JWs and COVID vaccine
by digderidoo inhi all, been a long time posting.. i have heard today that jws cannot take the vaccine due to blood within it.
is this correct?.
dig .
-
-
digderidoo
Thanks. So there is no truth in any of the vaccines being refused? My JW elderly father, with serious health problems, is saying he may not be allowed it due to blood - some directive from the Governing Body. I assume he has got something confused? Possibly local JW gossip.
-
7
JWs and COVID vaccine
by digderidoo inhi all, been a long time posting.. i have heard today that jws cannot take the vaccine due to blood within it.
is this correct?.
dig .
-
-
digderidoo
Hi all, been a long time posting.
I have heard today that JWs cannot take the vaccine due to blood within it. Is this correct?
Dig
-
30
Has anyone ever turn down being appointed an Elder or MS?
by Davros inhas anyone turned it down or know of someone who did turn down being an elder or ms?.
yes, it should be one of the biggest privileges a brother can get !!
(how do i put the barfy icon in?
-
-
digderidoo
My father started to privately doubt God's existence when he was offered an MS position. He accepted it.
-
51
Without god what is the basis of morality?
by OneEyedJoe ini'm sure most here who've questioned or left behind their belief in god have encountered this question - without god, what basis can there be for morality?
my exwife, when i admitted that i was an atheist, once asked me "if you don't believe in god, what's to stop you from going out and raping and murdering?
" previously, whenever i got this objection, i would tend to turn it around on the other person with a response along the lines of "if fear of god is the only thing that stops you from murdering, that makes me rather nervous to be around you.
-
-
digderidoo
This is an ancient dilemma.
Socrates asked Euthyphro, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Socrates was asking if morality must come from the gods to be good, or is it good anyway and therefore loved by the gods.
Many theists argue that morality is separate from God, that God only loves morality because it is good - Thomas Aquinas for instance, holds that humans through reason (from God) can seek out what is moral to what is immoral. It is 'reason' that is a gift of God, not that morality itself stems from God.
Morality only stems from God in a theistic argument if they believe in a Divine Command Theory of morals, ie what is moral is only moral because it comes from God - this is, however, a minority opinion among theists - and incidentally, not necessarily the view of JW's. Not least, because this means there is no measure on morality, other than God's will. Many others argue that God commands what is moral, because it is moral - ie God and morality are separate.
Romans 2:14,15 even tells us that the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts, that it is through their conscience that they do what is right.
If God and morality are indeed separate, then we can be moral without any belief in God or god.
-
28
Window Cleaners?
by nicolaou inlike a lot of others here, i gave higher education a miss when i left school (1980).
under the encouragement of the society i pioneered for three years instead!.
now i clean windows for a living.
-
-
digderidoo
I started window cleaning in 1986 to pioneer - ended up doing it on and off for many years after my exit from the JW's. In my late 30's I started a law degree, graduated, then did a Masters, now doing a PhD. I have done some teaching at college the last few years, I gave up cleaning windows about 4 years ago. Last year at the age of 46 I stepped up another stage to become a university lecturer.
Education is worth it, at any age.
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
-
-
digderidoo
Atheism = self defeating.
First may we define our terms. The word Atheism comes literally from the Greek, alpha the negative and theos [for God], therefore “negative God” or there is no God. It is not saying, “I do not think or believe there is a God”, rather it affirms the non existence of God. It affirms a negative in the absolute. Anyone who took philosophy 101 knows you cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. It is a logical contradiction. Therefore it is self defeating. It also breaks the rule of non contradiction by ascribing to itself a divine attribute while at the same time denying the existence of the Divine. Atheism not only denounces the existence of God, but by its own definition denounces the principle by which it criticizes the reality of God. To make an absolute statement in the negative is similar to saying that nowhere in the universe does there exist a flying spaghetti monster. For the atheist to make such a claim he must have unlimited knowledge of this universe. What the atheist is fundamentally saying is that he has infinite knowledge of this universe to affirm that there exist no being with infinite knowledge. It is self defeating.Good use of logic. However, as you are aware from your philosophy 101 class, a logical argument has be based upon true premises. Your premise (that atheism means 'negative god' which should be applied today) is false for the following three reasons. (After taking your philosophy 101 class you should be aware that if any one of the following three statements is true then your premise is false, meaning that your conclusion of atheism being self defeating is also false.)
1) The word atheism (atheos) in Greek means 'without god(s)' or 'without deities', not negative god as you presume. Early Christians in Greece were called atheists by the populous for their lack of belief in many gods. So you see the early literal meaning of the word is neither 'negative god', nor 'affirms the negative in the absolute'.
2) Basing a modern linguistic meaning on the 500 BC Greek use of a word is preposterous, as atheism has its roots in 600 BC India.
3) To get to where we are today we have had to pass through classical antiquity and the enlightenment. The meaning of words change in time, all of your language has - you would not base the meaning of all of your words used today on what they meant 2,500 years ago, that would be absurd.
On this point, your philosophy 101 class may have taught you something about Socrates. Please read Plato's dialogue of Cratylus (your philosophy 101 teacher may or may not be aware of it, ask him/her).
Socrates is brought in to help with an answer to an argument between Heraclitus and Cratylus. The former argued that names of words are posited by custom and convention, whereas Cratylus (like you) argues that names of words have some sort of natural meaning attached to them. After listening to both arguments Socrates describes the creation of words as being like an artist who expresses the essence of his subject in the painting. Over time the meaning of the names of words change, like the creation of the picture from the first use of the artists brush. He states, "names have been so twisted in all manner of ways, that I should not be surprised if the old language when compared with that now in use would appear to us to be a barbarous tongue."
Finally, Socrates concludes that the study of language to gauge a useful meaning is philosophically inferior to the study of the things themselves.
Take Socrates advice - to gauge a philosophical understanding of a topic study its things, not its words.
I rather suspect that the use of literal Greek for gauging some sort of modern day meaning is influenced by your JW days. Get out of the box and move on, there is big wide world out there.
-
233
Number of Muslims protesting London terrorist attack = ZERO. Number of Muslims protesting forced Mosque closure in France = HUNDREDS
by kpop inso it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
-
-
digderidoo
Interesting thread, I was in London last Wednesday, though not near Parliament.
I got in to a lengthy discussion here a couple of years ago after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, trying to understand the nature of the attacks being due to young Algerian Muslims being oppressed in France. The last couple of years I have begun to change my views. I can see how those in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan are oppressed by the West and see no issue in them wanting to defend themselves from invading US and allies troops, but that is not the issue here.
There is a basic problem with a fringe on the left (of which I was one), in that it begins to excuse any act of terrorism if committed by a Muslim as being a response to historic Muslim oppression. Whereas, an act of terrorism committed by the right wing, (Anders Breivak in Norway, Timothy McVeighthe Oklahoma bombing, Dylan Roof - CHarleston church shooting) are rightly condemned and never excused.
Why is it that when a Muslim commits terrorism, this fringe left (regressive left, call it what you will), condemns it only in the context of a response to oppression, whereas when a white commits terrorism it is rightly condemned outright? This left fringe actually adds the problem, by excusing terror when committed by brown skinned people.
Anyone who then looks to the Muslim faith to see what is going on and begins to condemn aspects of that Muslim faith that they see as a problem is then shut down as a racist, as I once was guilty of. The left should rightfully condemn the Quran which supports such an ideology.
There is a problem in the Muslim faith that should be rightly addressed. Individuals use verses of the Quran as a reason to commit these atrocities, yet when a so-called 'moderate muslim' is just asked to condemn those verses of the Quran 99% of them refuse to do so. Many of them will condemn the atrocity itself, but not those verses of the Quran that has been used to justify the atrocity.
Trevor Phillips who once headed the Race Relations Board in the UK has done an interesting study and asks whether political correctness has gone mad. He conducted a survey among Muslims in the UK, here are some of the findings -
2,650,000 Muslims live in the UK
47% do not want their children to be taught by a gay teacher
66% would not inform the police if someone they knew was involved with supporters of terrorism in Syria
1/6 want to live separately from the rest of the population
4% sympathise with suicide bombers (that's 111,000 muslims in the UK)
52% believe homosexuality should be illegal
23% support the introduction of Sharia Law
32% refuse to condemn violence against those who mock the Prophet
39% agree wives should obey their husbands
5% sympathise with stoning women for adultery (132,000 in the UK)
If Muslims refuse to address this problem, which crosses over with the so-called 'moderate muslims', there will be no integration and if the left continue to excuse the problem as a reaction of being oppressed or discriminated against it will continue.
Ex-Muslims, when speaking out against their former religion are shut down as being bigots, racists, etc. Maryam Namazie has had to struggle just to get a platform at University debates, often ridiculed as a bigot, all because she has a point of view that the Muslim faith should address these concerns.
The kind of findings that Trevor Phillips report suggests belong within an ideology that is fascist. I have changed my view over the last year or so. There are always those who are bigoted or racist and condemn Muslims from that platform, but that should not stop a criticism of the Muslim faith and the Quran itself, which essentially belongs within a fascist ideology.