https://nixlaw.com/news/judge-orders-jehovahs-witnesses-to-turn-over-internal-documents-related-to-childhood-sexual-abuse/.
judge orders jehovah’s witnesses to turn over internal documents related to childhood sexual abuse.
april 12, 2018. .
Bobby,
This organisation also has obligations to those who class themselves as members of this organisation. Withholding information of criminal activity is a crime and no amount of hand wringing about '2 witnesses' can shift that fact. The law is clear and that is why this organisation you like to support has to hide these facts because they have acted illegally.
However you seem to think this is all about money. Perhaps you are more 'watchtower' than you even think you are...
https://nixlaw.com/news/judge-orders-jehovahs-witnesses-to-turn-over-internal-documents-related-to-childhood-sexual-abuse/.
judge orders jehovah’s witnesses to turn over internal documents related to childhood sexual abuse.
april 12, 2018. .
"The reorganization years ago was apparently in part to make suing them harder; to make them less centralized, and to force money-grubbing blame-shifters to think twice about bringing a frivolous lawsuit." - bobby
You are right again bobby, they need to shift things around to make the victims' attempt at justice all the more difficult. Why change the problems within the organisation that are actually causing these issues when you can simply hide the guilt...
"money-grubbing blame-shifters" - Booby
Is that how you describe victims of abuse who have had no recourse other than a legal one to get the watchtower corporation to answer for their policies that enabled the abuse to happen?
https://nixlaw.com/news/judge-orders-jehovahs-witnesses-to-turn-over-internal-documents-related-to-childhood-sexual-abuse/.
judge orders jehovah’s witnesses to turn over internal documents related to childhood sexual abuse.
april 12, 2018. .
"Sure, the WT should volunteer information to aid lawyers in suing them" - Bobby
That's right, they should hide their guilt to the best of their abilities. However, if the information is not there in the first place then there is nothing to 'give' to anyone...
"You sound like fools..." - Bobby
Says the poster who says that the watchtower should try to hide their guilt from those who want justice...
below i link the article.
i thought some points on the claim were interesting.
such as how prolonged direct exposure to sunlight hurts us vs other animals, sicknesses, etc.
"that is not known beyond a shadow of a doubt..." - BW
Yes it is. The evidence all demonstrates this to be true. All the evidence tells the same story.
"...and your keep saying that doesn't make it true." - BW
You are correct; Cofty saying it is true doesn't make it true. It's all the evidence that makes it true. It's all that stuff you seem to have overlooked before making that OP; that OP that is so daft it requires you to have absolutely no knowledge of these subjects to take it seriously.
Yet again I am going to say something that I seem to repeat a lot on these type of topics: You (BW) do not know enough to understand just how wrong you are...
hi does anyone know any good articles or videos about how old mankind and the earth are and carbon dating?
.
i've just started looking into it but there seems to be a lot of conflicting ideas over accuracy so i'm unsure what to think.
Venus -
What Cofty said was true; you haven't the first clue what you are talking about regarding evolution. Perhaps if you stopped reading nonsense books and learnt about the subject you would know why books like 'signature in the cell' are nonsense and why what you are saying at the moment is woefully wrong...
You accuse others of behaving like the JWs, and yet you cannot see that it is you that is behaving just like them.
That is a very old creationist argument Venus. I wonder if you could explain what specified information is.
hi does anyone know any good articles or videos about how old mankind and the earth are and carbon dating?
.
i've just started looking into it but there seems to be a lot of conflicting ideas over accuracy so i'm unsure what to think.
Venus
Despite what you say you clearly do not know enough about evolution to understand how little you actually know. The term 'painfully ignorant' can quite accurately be used for people such as yourself for that reason and no other; it is painful to witness (which is what was actually written a couple of posts back by Cofty) the ramblings of someone who obviously does not understand the topic yet shouts very loudly that they understand it better than those of us who do...
I find it hard to believe you have studied anything like you assert for this reason: Your posts are all over the place and conclusions do not follow the evidence presented. Therefore I conclude that you are doing nothing more than re-reporting what you have read on creationist sites whilst making no attempt to understand the underlying topic you are discussing.
hi does anyone know any good articles or videos about how old mankind and the earth are and carbon dating?
.
i've just started looking into it but there seems to be a lot of conflicting ideas over accuracy so i'm unsure what to think.
Venus -
The conclusion that you made, that is wrong, was this:
"Hi shepherdless,
What you say [There has been a massive population explosion in the last couple of centuries due to modern health and sanitation, modern medicine, the Haber process, etc. Before that, population levels were relatively stable, even over millenia] is not correct.
It is just the other way around..." - Venus
You conclusion is the world's population was not stable and that we are not now seeing a massive increase in the world's population due to modern medicine, agriculture, engineering etc. You are wrong.
"...It is just the other way around..." - Venus
I will repeat that part of your post so there can be no more confusion on you part as to why I am saying you are wrong. My conclusion was soundly based on your own words. If you wrote incorrectly then you should reiterate your position so we can move forwards.
The rest of you latest post is just nonsense and blatant projection. Let's look at one nonsensical blathering of yours; referring to Richard Dawkins retweeting a satirical song you said:
"...he took it too personally the distress of which was too much that his brain suffered a stroke within 13 days..." - Venus
You offered up a newspaper article to back up this stupidness. Did you read the article you presented? I don't think you did because had you done so you would have seen Richard's response to his being dropped from a Conference due to this retweeting:
“De-platformed for tweeting an irrelevant joke song? Ah well, ‘Always look on the bright side of life.’ Incidentally, would Monty Python have been de-platformed for that? No, don’t be silly, Life of Brian was only satirising Christianity.” - Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins was 74 at the time of this 'mini stroke'. Yet again you take one fact and then form a conclusion that has no basis in reality.
You are quite the one Venus...
hi does anyone know any good articles or videos about how old mankind and the earth are and carbon dating?
.
i've just started looking into it but there seems to be a lot of conflicting ideas over accuracy so i'm unsure what to think.
Venus -
What Shepherdess said is correct. What you said is not.
1 - People did have many children centuries ago but then many children died in childhood.
2 - Kings did have many wives in some societies. Do you really think that this example you give demonstrates the norm amongst the population as a whole? If so how did the man support all these wives and children?
3 - Your post is a good example of the 'non sequitur' argumentation mistakes often used by creationists. Your conclusion does not follow from the evidence you provide. I am going to assume that you simply do not know why what you have written does not support your assertion...
hi does anyone know any good articles or videos about how old mankind and the earth are and carbon dating?
.
i've just started looking into it but there seems to be a lot of conflicting ideas over accuracy so i'm unsure what to think.
Using 'venus maths' the population of India 1500 years ago was 1.
I guess venus just proved the human race didn't exist 2000 years ago and therefore Jesus never existed nor the Roman empire or anything else for that matter.
Venus, that is how you 'logic' isn't it? You first state something inane and then conclude something ludicrous? Am I getting your methodology accurate?
perhaps this has been linked here before.
if that's the case, i'm sorry.
however, new people join, others miss things, some forget, so i thought it was worth posting, especially since this issue comes up from time to time and some here have never worked it out or are in the process of trying to do so.
"There's plenty of evidence from all kinds of sources about the existence of that person" - Scratchme
Is there? What contemporary writings document this person?
