Is this Trump's disinfectant? The stuff that he told people to inject
That never happened. If you believed it did, you are the kind of patsy the media targets - they wouldn't do what they did if people weren't so gullible.
'last night's flccc weekly update featured stories of families who fought in court to compel hospitals to give their loved ones ivermectin.
that it has come to this is tragic.
63 studies have now shown ivermectin’s efficacy in all stages of c19 disease.'.
Is this Trump's disinfectant? The stuff that he told people to inject
That never happened. If you believed it did, you are the kind of patsy the media targets - they wouldn't do what they did if people weren't so gullible.
biden mandated widespread covid shots today.. "we've been patient," biden announced.
"but our patience is wearing thin, and your refusal has cost all of us.".
.
If, as he claims, they need to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated ... then there is little point in getting vaccinated.
He has no legal authority to do this - it will be challenged in court and he will lose.
What ever happened to "my body, my choice"?
what kind of games should we play on this discussion board?
this forum needs to be more interesting.
any ideas?
Because there's a limit.
https://canopyforum.org/2021/04/19/the-right-to-shun-ghents-misguided-jehovahs-witness-decision/.
in march, the criminal court of ghent, belgium fined the congregation of jehovah’s witnesses (jw) for “inciting discrimination and hatred or violence against former members.” the case centered on the jw practice of “disfellowshipping.” while the court’s sensitivity to the individual impact of shunning is laudable, its decision regrettably assaults the freedoms of religion and association.. first, some background on jw beliefs and disfellowshipping.
jw was founded in the united states over a century ago and is headquartered in new york state.
Jehovah's witnesses do not have a choice.
You won't convince me otherwise.
Are you still a Jehovahs Witness then? No? How come? How is that possible? Oh, right ... because you did have a choice.
Everyone always has a choice. Choices almost always have consequences. Just because some can't face the consequences of a choice doesn't mean they don't have one.
This is the very important bit:
When you repeat the claim that JWs don't have a choice, you do the WatchTowers bidding.
The WTS would love JWs to believe they don't have a choice other than to do as they are told.
But of course it's wrong.
For the JWs who are evil cunts that prefer to follow the teachings of some old farts an ocean away, the idea that it's not them doing it is a pure, 100%, easy-peasy get-out. "I have to shun you, too bad, so sad!".
But the reality is that they too have a choice, and any shunning that THEY do is on THEM.
This is what the message should be - hang a big "unloving, uncaring, grade A cunt" sign in anyone who shuns anyone they claimed to be their family or friends just the day before, all because they lack the moral fortitude or mental capability to come to a better choice.
Really, "we have no choice" is up there with "the devil made me do it" when it comes to lame excuses for bad behavior.
https://canopyforum.org/2021/04/19/the-right-to-shun-ghents-misguided-jehovahs-witness-decision/.
in march, the criminal court of ghent, belgium fined the congregation of jehovah’s witnesses (jw) for “inciting discrimination and hatred or violence against former members.” the case centered on the jw practice of “disfellowshipping.” while the court’s sensitivity to the individual impact of shunning is laudable, its decision regrettably assaults the freedoms of religion and association.. first, some background on jw beliefs and disfellowshipping.
jw was founded in the united states over a century ago and is headquartered in new york state.
Everyone has a choice whether to shun someone or not. The WTS only has the power over you that you give it. The WTS can't shun you - how many people have daily dealings with the WTS really? Do you go for coffee with the governing body? Of course not.
The people who decide to shun you based on what the WTS beliefs are - they are the ones that shun you, and that is their decision. Every decision people make is based on some external influences. You think you can legislate life to that degree?
There is no "simple" law to just make it illegal. Seriously, try coming up with the law and it'll be easy to demonstrate ways it can be bypassed or misused.
it hard to believe------you don't have the truth.. sometimes, for many----it takes half of your life -- or more---to figure it out.
it was like swimming upstream with lead boots pulling you back in.
and the closer you got to the "real" truth----the further away you strayed from your intimate group.
I have so far raised my daughter in the truth. She is 7 now.
You owe it to her to spare her the pain the religion can bring for so many.
The funny thing is, it's only after you leave that you realize that it takes more effort to keep going than to stop going. It sounds so obvious in hindsight, and you wonder what you'll do with all the spare time (but don't worry, it's easily filled with worthwhile pursuits)
what kind of games should we play on this discussion board?
this forum needs to be more interesting.
any ideas?
How about a funny video? This cracked me up (there's a whole show if you like it).
here's an excerpt from the recent lawsuit deborah hines v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york et al (paragraphs 158-180), one of 29 known cases brought against the org pursuant to the ny child victims act.
what should be kept in mind is that gerrit lösch apparently worked in europe (the austrian branch and eastern europe) at the time when the abuse was allegedly reported to him (not a gb member then).. plaintiff was raised a member of the jehovah’s witnesses.
she primarily attended meetings at various congregations in arizona.
Agreed. I just meant if he wasn't there it immediately rules her testimony as false, no?
Yes, it's a potentially watertight alibi, but the lack of such an alibi doesn't prove guilt.
Accusations need evidence.
https://canopyforum.org/2021/04/19/the-right-to-shun-ghents-misguided-jehovahs-witness-decision/.
in march, the criminal court of ghent, belgium fined the congregation of jehovah’s witnesses (jw) for “inciting discrimination and hatred or violence against former members.” the case centered on the jw practice of “disfellowshipping.” while the court’s sensitivity to the individual impact of shunning is laudable, its decision regrettably assaults the freedoms of religion and association.. first, some background on jw beliefs and disfellowshipping.
jw was founded in the united states over a century ago and is headquartered in new york state.
Everyone has the right to shun whoever they want. This is a fundamental freedom and it would be impossible and unwanted to have the government try to change that.
Think it through, how would it work? How could it be misused?
Be careful what you wish for - one day you find yourself unable to refuse a visit from your JW relatives because hey, YOU can't shun THEM.
Previous writings on this issue:
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/505320005/right-shun-wrong
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5544787176325120/doing-right-thing-making-choice-shunning
here's an excerpt from the recent lawsuit deborah hines v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york et al (paragraphs 158-180), one of 29 known cases brought against the org pursuant to the ny child victims act.
what should be kept in mind is that gerrit lösch apparently worked in europe (the austrian branch and eastern europe) at the time when the abuse was allegedly reported to him (not a gb member then).. plaintiff was raised a member of the jehovah’s witnesses.
she primarily attended meetings at various congregations in arizona.
Some of this sounds far fetched, like really badly-written fiction.
I can't imagine anyone saying they'll "get the entire governing body involved", or then saying they should think of themselves as "privileged". c'mon, that's just nuts.
I get the impression some people believe it's true possibly because they want it to be true.
The mistake being made is imagining that someone being in the US or not verifies the claim. It doesn't. If they were not in the US then it would discredit them but their being there doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that they were there.