there have been many tv programs all the way back to candid camera which set people up for pranks.
it was all in good fun and the results were shown only if a legal release was signed allowing the prank to be broadcast.getting permission after-the-fact was essential, otherwise, you've wasted your efforts.ahhhh, but what about public figures who are legally exempted from the necessary "permission" form agreement?is an ambush set-up fair or even ethical?the answer we give depends on how much we love or hate the victim!if we really, really dislike certain public figures there's a tendency to want to see them embarrassed and exposed as buffoons, idiots, hypocrites, and fools.on the other hand, consider this.
in a nation as divided as is america along color lines, political factions, and social "correctness" concerns--are we lighting a fuse by going too far?____why am i asking this question?i watched this preview and found myself torn.
Wounded vet, big fricken deal. I bet they could give a rat's ass he pretended to be one
I bet you haven't talked to a wounded veteran about this.
Also he pulled in Bernie Sanders, so not all his targets are Republicans.
I don't watch him, because in my opinion he breaks the first rule of political (or any other kind) satire. He's not funny.
ok. many people deny ct russell was a freemason.
i have read articles whereby some have found no evidence to prove he was one at any point in his life.. however, given all the masonic symbols in the early publications including the use of the name jehovah ( the name the freemason's use to identify god), as well as the expressions used such as 'new world, new order' etc certainly raises suspicions.. then there is the article he wrote in the herald magazine outlining that he was a freemason (see the following video 40 seconds in).
it really does make you think!.
Unshackle the Chains:
Please explain why Russell's association, or non-association, with freemasons is important, or makes any difference about anything.
time to revive this well known, and often used jw illustration!.
"if you are in desperate need of a drink of water, and the glass in front of you is 99% clean, but contains just 1% poison, would you drink it??".
how often we heard this trotted out from the platform.. recently though, i have heard many examples of still-in jws sharing their observations about things that don't seem quite right with the current activities, direction and culture of the organization.
If its a glass of Bourbon it's half poison.
yesterday i drove passed a town a couple of hours from my home and saw this kh under construction.
this is the first new design kh i've seen in washington state even though i would think by now another one or two have been built.
maybe not with their financial situation being the way it is.
After thinking about this for a bit I have to say this building is not designed for resale, at least not by somebody that knows what he's doing. This is cheap construction without intrinsic value. It will also be harder to convert to another use than you might think. Most businesses will probably rather build their own building than buy this ugly duckling.
yesterday i drove passed a town a couple of hours from my home and saw this kh under construction.
this is the first new design kh i've seen in washington state even though i would think by now another one or two have been built.
maybe not with their financial situation being the way it is.
That is a seriously ugly building.
i recently saw on a website where a guy i know posted a link to a video by graham hancock.
now this guy is a nutjob kind of like the ancient alien guys.
this pyramid has been a fascination of crackpots for years.
I'm currently rewriting a novel, based loosely on my experience with the JW's. I invented my own apocalyptic religion as it gave me more creative leeway. As part of that I tried working out different sets of dates for Armageddon using the same sort of "year for a day" type calculations. I concluded that I could pull a year out of my ass and cobble together a "scriptural" proof that this would be the date for the end of the world. In other words its all meaningless.
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.
I've maintained for some time that I don't think the government ought to be in the business of marrying anybody. If needed, or you so desire, you can go to the government and form some legal entity (partnership, corporation, whatever) which will regulate jointly owned property, estates, etc. If you need some sort of religious blessing on this union, you can get one at any church (or an association of atheists if that floats your boat) that will give it to you, but that union will have only whatever benefits your church wants to give you. It would have no legal force whatsoever. In other words, the secular and religious matters would be kept completely separate.
i would like to think there was some good that resulted from our being a witness at one time..
I met my wife via the Witnesses. My experience has provided inspiration for a novel I'm trying to publish.
if everything is supposed to be about the lives of children, how can they hypocritically fight to take babies and kill them?
what about the children and their quality of life?.
As with most "issues" these days I find myself living in the grey zone. I generally dislike abortion, but recognize that I'm not wise enough to demand people live by my standards.
Having said that, watching the "pro choice" camp manipulate the language is interesting. Start with "pro choice." The abortion crowd never says they are "pro abortion" it is always "pro choice." And those clusters of cells with different DNA from the mother are never "babies" (unless you're talking to somebody who isn't having an abortion) they are "fetuses" or "blobs of tissue." They even complain about others "humanizing" fetuses.
https://www.infowars.com/abortion-group-blasts-doritos-ad-for-humanizing-fetuses/
the recent threads on blood fractions got me to thinking about ways to expose the absurdity of the watchtower's position on blood.
so i thought of the titular question.
would a hebrew have understood the prohibition on pork as meaning he had to avoid "major" pig fractions (ham, bacon, ribs) but "minor" pig fractions like pickled feet and fried pork rinds were ok?
The recent threads on blood fractions got me to thinking about ways to expose the absurdity of the Watchtower's position on blood. So I thought of the titular question. Would a Hebrew have understood the prohibition on pork as meaning he had to avoid "major" pig fractions (ham, bacon, ribs) but "minor" pig fractions like pickled feet and fried pork rinds were OK?
I don't think so. Of course the WTBS position is driven by an attempt to reconcile modern science with two thousand year old religious belief. It can't be done.
