I think it's good that she is suing. I'm not sure that the mall had any negligence in causing the accident, unless she is able to show that there was something wrong with the fountain design or layout. However, the mall appears to be negligent in either posting this video or allowing it to be posted. They allowed a minor incident on their property to become a nightmare for this woman. That's very unprofessional. I think most people who were videotaped at their place of employment would be pretty upset if something embarrassing was then posted to YouTube.
Posts by DT
-
20Help! I've fallen and I can get up on my own but I'm going to sue because I'm embarrassed.
by sooner7nc inhttp://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/fountain-lady-nobody-went-to-my-aid-23909987 .
-
-
-
69
*Seriously* Considering A Billboard Ad?
by laverite ina full billboard ad in my area along a busy heavily travelled highway would cost about $500.
would probably get lots of attention and maybe even a news article, who knows.
$500 is cheap and easily affordable.
-
-
DT
I think this is a great idea.
I think it would be interesting to have a billboard that says something like, "Did you know that Jehovah's Witnesses have a do not call list?" and then list a website with a simple url like jwfacts.com.
I think this is one issue that affects nearly everyone because most find it irritating to be woken up or bothered on Saturday mornings. Unfortunately, most people don't care about the internal beliefs or practices of Jehovah's Witnesses, but they might show some interest if they can just learn how to get them to stop knocking on their doors.
I don't think that message is hateful or libelous in any way. Some will go to the website and learn more. They might even give reasons for asking to be put on the do not call list. This can really have a powerful effect on the visiting Witnesses. Having to keep track of do not calls can also make the task of witnessing less efficient and more discouraging, in my experience.
If you wanted to be more aggressive, you could say something like, "Is there a pedophile knocking on your door? Learn what you can do about it." and then provide an appropriate url.
-
12
Is there a serious weakness in the Watchtower Society's legal position?
by DT inthe watchtower society is good at intimidation.
it uses fear to maintain control of it's members, including fear of being destroyed at armageddon and fear of shunning and being rejected by family and friends.
they even try to intimidate former members by threatening them with lawsuits over copyright issues, as an example.
-
-
DT
The Watchtower Society is good at intimidation. It uses fear to maintain control of it's members, including fear of being destroyed at Armageddon and fear of shunning and being rejected by family and friends. They even try to intimidate former members by threatening them with lawsuits over copyright issues, as an example. Very few people are willing or able to endure a drown out legal struggle with the Watchtower Society, regardless of the legal merits of the case or chances of eventual victory.
Could this situation be concealing a profound weakness in the Watchtower Society's legal position? I should disclose that I'm not a lawyer and I'm not qualified to give legal advice. I'm just speculating about possible situations that could cause serious problems for the Watchtower Society.
I'll try to make my point by discussing a hypothetical scenario in the United States. An elder posts the new elders manual online. He posts it on his own website and doesn't even try to hide the fact that he is responsible for distributing that copyrighted work. He is soon disfellowshipped and threatened with legal action if he doesn't stop distributing that book.
It would be crazy for that elder to persist in distributing an entire copyrighted book. The law is pretty clear on that being copyright infringement. Suppose, for whatever reason (perhaps he has a terminal illness), he refuses to back down. The Watchtower Society sues him, while trying to avoid publicity for their secret elder's manual.
The disfellowshipped elder then alerts the media about this case and uses a novel legal defense. He says that this is an internal religious dispute and claims the court has no constitutional right to interfere. He points to something in the Watchtower literature to support the idea that he has a right and responsibility to distribute this information. (It probably doesn't matter if his reasons are compelling because, in theory, this would be internal religious matter that the courts couldn't investigate.)
This may be a clear case of copyright infringement, but it's a moot point if the courts are unable to interfere. The Watchtower Society has used this same defense to avoid having the courts investigate lawsuits against them where there may be clear violations of the law in terms of slander, medical liability, etc.
If this legal defense worked, it would be a major public embarrassment for the Watchtower Society. Perhaps they would appeal and argue that don't have religious freedom if they can't use the courts to enforce their legal rights under copyright law. They would have a point, although they would likely downplay that fact that many of those who have tried to sue them could make a similar argument.
If that legal defense failed (which I think would be likely), then it could be even more problematic for the Watchtower Society. Suppose that disfellowshipped elder turned right around and sued the Watchtower Society for damages related to his disfellowshipping (perhaps loss of business and damage to his reputation, etc.) I'm sure the Watchtower Society would use the same legal defense that they argued against during the first lawsuit. It would be a hard sell since they are both dealing with the same general situation.
If the courts were consistent and decided that there were compelling reasons to hear both cases, then this could be a precedent that would open a floodgate of lawsuits concerning enforced shunning, deaths from their blood policies and so forth.
The Watchtower Society likes to have their cake and eat it too. They have no problem fighting for their rights while trampling on the rights of others and seeking immunity from lawsuits under the pretense of religious freedom. They have done a good job of maintaining this unfair advantage so far, but I wonder if they will someday have a rude awakening.
What do you think?
-
40
Highlights from talk by Watchtower Representative Ciro Aulicino
by Shepherd Book insome of you have probably heard this talk before, but i updated my site and made this page:
http://www.watchtowerletters.com/more.html
the best part (in my opinion) is the talk by ciro aulicino, entitled "you will be with me in paradise".
-
-
DT
I posted this video a while ago on one of my blogs. This is one of the comments I recently recieved from an apologist.
"We must remember that this is an old talk. And that it may have been taken out of context and pieced together. All I'm saying is be cautious when listening to things like this, as this is another source and is designed to make those think that Witnesses are wrong. Have they made mistakes? Yes but are any of us perfect? Have they admitted they were wrong? Yes and publicly too. So can we get off their back and leave them alone? Yes if we are man enough. So those who continue to persecute them well i feel sorry that you were not loved as a baby and taught to be mean to others just be cause they are different. Wait why does that sound familiar? or right that is what the USA was doing against the blacks! So are YOU going to continue to be racist?"
Here is the link in case anyone wants to add there own comments. http://jehovahswitnessesvideo.blogspot.com/2010/01/excerpt-from-talk-by-watchtower.html
-
98
SBCheezits Judicial Hearing - My EPIC FAIL (REPOST for IE users)
by SweetBabyCheezits in(note: i apologize to the internet explorer users.
you probably can't see my first epic fail thread because i used firefox to post.
there's still some kind of glitch between a plugin i'm running, firefox posts, and ie.).
-
-
DT
I like the way the tables have been turned on the elders in this case. They no longer have all the power and now have to be concerned about how this will affect their reputation and relationship with friends and family. I'm sure they are focusing on damage control right now. It's ironic that one of the elders was expressing views that are no longer current (to my best recollection) and is also guilty of apostasy.
I think we can count on bethel monitoring these threads. If it would be beneficial to you, you could post that you are willing to withhold the recording if they don't disfellowship you. It would be interesting to see how that affects things. They might just let you off the hook with a stern warning to not share your doubts with others.
I'm also curious about what they said when they discovered your recording and if this could be used as evidence that they invaded your privacy by tampering with your phone.
One concern that I have is that it may have been legal for you to record the conversation while you were present, but not when you were out of the room, depending on the laws in your area. On the other hand, the specific laws may be irrelevant if it is judged to be an internal religious matter outside the court's jurisdiction. The WTS uses this excuse all the time to avoid consequences for behaviour that would normally be illegal. I don't see any reason why it couldn't work both ways. (This is just my opinion. I'm not qualified to give legal advice and I'm not suggesting you test this theory.)
-
22
The fascinating mind of ANSELM (the man who proved God exists)
by Terry inthat one thing, of course, exists through itself, and so it is greater than all the other things.
so that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.
but if it exists in the understanding, it must also exist in reality.
-
-
DT
This is fun. I want to come up with my own proof of God. I realize that my first assumption might be suspect, but that isn't uncommon for proofs of God.
1. Something impossible is actually possible. (Many people believe this when putting faith in things that are impossible.) 2. Therefore, anything is possible, even things that are impossible. 3. Therefore, anything is not only possible, but a certainty in at least one possible world (Since all possible worlds contain all possibilities). 4. Let's define God as someone who is so supremely supreme that he is the supreme being in every possible world. 5. God exists in at least one possible world. (see #3) 6. If he exists in one possible world, he exists in every possible world. (see #4) 7. God exists in our world. 8. God exists. 9. If you manage to somehow prove that God is impossible, then you have actually confirmed #1 and made this argument even stronger.
-
22
The fascinating mind of ANSELM (the man who proved God exists)
by Terry inthat one thing, of course, exists through itself, and so it is greater than all the other things.
so that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.
but if it exists in the understanding, it must also exist in reality.
-
-
DT
"3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
this makes no sense to me, why does it have to exist in every world because it exists in one? thats like saying if i sit in one chair i sit in every possible chair"
In this context, "maximally great" means a being which has maximal excellence in every possible world. It would then exist in every possible world, according to the one making the definitions and playing these particular word games. You're right that it makes no sense, which is a good indication that the initial assumption(s) is deeply flawed.
-
22
The fascinating mind of ANSELM (the man who proved God exists)
by Terry inthat one thing, of course, exists through itself, and so it is greater than all the other things.
so that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.
but if it exists in the understanding, it must also exist in reality.
-
-
DT
I would say a fatal flaw exists in Anselm's first assumption.
1.In all existing things there must be a supremely good, almost as good, good and less than good among them.
Since I don't accept this assumption, I have no reason to be bound by the conclusions that are based on it. If this assumption could be proven, then the rest of the argument would deserve consideration. However, if God doesn't exist, then the notion of "supremely good" seems to be meaningless, or at least very subjective. If you believe in a benevolent deity, then the idea of "supremely good" can start to make some sense. The problem is that you are basing your argument on the presupposition that God exists, thus making it circular.
His first assumption is also too complex and not obvious enough to make a good foundation for further arguments. It would be easier for me to just assume that God exists than to accept Anselm's first assumption. I think the concept of a first cause (called God) is more intuitively obvious than the first step of Anselm's argument, even though it's not obvious enough for me to accept it.
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
DT
"There is no doubt that the secondary meaning is being promoted by a vocal community of Atheists (even here) as they attempt to redefine Atheism and wipe out the original and common primary definition. Why?" I think we can agree that the term atheist has a very long history (well over two thousand years). During this time, the basic term has had many different meanings and has often been used and abused by people with an agenda. Of course, members of the atheist community have a tendency to promote a meaning of the term that makes sense to them and actually describes most people who consider themselves atheists. The term atheist was initially used as a derogatory term. I don't see why atheists should be content with definitions of atheist that are meant to be insulting. I question your assertion that your favored definition of atheist is the original definition. The original use of atheist was to describe people who were ungodly or impious (without god). It was only used as an insult and reflected the prejudices of the people using the term. Therefore, we have examples of the Romans using the term for early Christians because they didn't worship the Roman gods. The original meaning of atheist was far broader than the definitions in use today. Even though you are an agnostic, you would have certainly been called an atheist according to early meanings of the word. Eventually, some people began to conclude that the term atheist could be useful to distinguish themselves from theists. It shouldn't be a surprise that they resist definitions of the term that are insulting or misrepresent them.
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
DT
- "Atheist
- 1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god". A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."'
It appears that this definition doesn't tell the whole story. I won't pretend to fully understand the long and confusing history of the term atheist. However, here is something interesting from Wikipedia,
"The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[20] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[21] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577."
It would appear that the 1571 definition is the original definition in English and it is remarkably similar to how most atheist describe themselves today. It's interesting that the word began to have a more negative connotation in 1577. I expect it was probably theists who began to gradually alter the impression of the word to further their agenda and criticize those who weren't in their club.