EdenOne

Joined

• started 155 topics
• posted 2,912 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by EdenOne

• 
  105

  LATEST NEWS: CANDANCE CONTI VERIDICT READY - WT LOST!!!!!!!

  by Viva la Vida in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'm not an expert but that is my understanding of this: .

  opinion filed.. (signed published) the judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed.

  the judgment against watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for watchtower on punitive damages.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  "We hold that defendants had no duty to warn the Congregation or Conti’s parents that Kendrick had molested a child, but that defendais can be held liable for failing to limit and supervise Kendrick’s “field service,” a church-sponsored activity where members go door-to-door preaching in the community. Kendrick had unsupervised access to Conti during field service that he used as opportunities to molest her. Because breach of the alleged duty to warn was the sole basis for imposition of punitive damages on Watchtower, we reverse that portion of the judgment, with directions to enter judgment for Watchtower on the punitive damage claim. The compensatory damage award is affirmed."

  Seems to me that Ms. Conti's legal team made a mistake here, when they based their claim for punitive damages solely on the duty of the Watchtower to warn (the court disagreed it had said duty), and not also on their negligence to supervise Kendrick's field service activity. I presume that, if the claim had been based on the latter, the Watchtower would have lost that as well. No doubt the Watchtower dodged a finantial bullet - for now.

  edit: thank you cappytan

  Eden

  
  
• 
  105

  LATEST NEWS: CANDANCE CONTI VERIDICT READY - WT LOST!!!!!!!

  by Viva la Vida in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'm not an expert but that is my understanding of this: .

  opinion filed.. (signed published) the judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed.

  the judgment against watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for watchtower on punitive damages.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  I wonder what does the underlined part means?
  

  Opinion filed. (Signed Published) The judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed. The judgment against Watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for Watchtower on punitive damages. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.

  New trial on punitive damages? Or ...?

  Eden
• 
  233

  What is BELIEF ?

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

  what exactly is "belief"?.

  is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Ok, got it, thanks for finding that out, Cofty.

  I'm reposting with that part of the quote edited out:

  I understand the need that rationalists have to jump at anything that resembles theism. As put by Jeffrey Tayler in an article in Salon, rationalists feel they no longer should keep quiet about religious nonsense:

  "nonbelievers are no longer keeping mum about the rank stupidity embodied in Christianity. A virgin birth? A rib-becomes-woman? A man walking on water? The vicarious redemption of “sin” through a cruel and unusual act of human sacrifice? All these fantasticalities offend thinking, sane individuals. No one should expect us to accept the truth of such fantasticalities or to allow dogma arising from them to determine discourse on how we live, which laws pass, and whom we marry, without fierce resistance."

  Agreed. However, there are limits. Just as there should be intolerance to religious hate speech, there shouldn't be room for anti-religion hate speech. Plus, because rationalists tend to value education, exactitude and ethicals in higher regards than their religious fellow humans, they should be the ones that set a better track record when discussing these matters in a civil, thoughtful way.

  Look! The proponent of this thread isn't attempting to tell you or anyone else how to live life; it's not about to pass any law that will affect your life; isn't indoctrinating anyone into a religion; isn't doing anything to discriminate people on the basis of religious belief. He's not even a theist, of all sins! So, tell me why the heck you feel so self-entitled to be rude to other people just because they hold a different view from yours? If you feel some crime is being committed against reason, the remedy is to reason further, not to insult. If you feel that the discourse isn't honest, correct it with honesty. If you detect dogmas that don't merit immunity to disproof, fight dogmas with open-mindedness, not scorn. And surely, pick your opponents more wisely.

  If reason is used to advance the enjoyment of life, I'm a rationalist too. But if reason is but a flag, used merely to win debates and an excuse to be insulting to others, you're a disgrace to your own cause.

  Eden
• 
  233

  What is BELIEF ?

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

  what exactly is "belief"?.

  is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  You can't possibly assert anything about evidence or knowledge regarding a thing you can't define.

  Except belief?

  It's used by the WT quite often

  Ah, the ex-JW flavor of ad hitlerium fallacy!

  Eden
• 
  233

  What is BELIEF ?

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

  what exactly is "belief"?.

  is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  I understand the need that rationalists have to jump at anything that resembles theism. As put by Jeffrey Tayler in an article in Salon, rationalists feel they no longer should keep quiet about religious nonsense:

  "nonbelievers are no longer keeping mum about the rank stupidity embodied in Christianity. A virgin birth? A rib-come-woman? A man walking on water? The vicarious redemption of “sin” through a cruel and unusual act of human sacrifice? All these fantasticalities offend thinking, sane individuals. No one should expect us to accept the truth of such fantasticalities or to allow dogma arising from them to determine discourse on how we live, which laws pass, and whom we marry, without fierce resistance."

  Agreed. However, there are limits. Just as there should be intolerance to religious hate speech, there shouldn't be room for anti-religion hate speech. Plus, because rationalists tend to value education, exactitude and ethicals in higher regards than their religious fellow humans, they should be the ones that set a better track record when discussing these matters in a civil, thoughtful way.

  Look! The proponent of this thread isn't attempting to tell you or anyone else how to live life; it's not about to pass any law that will affect your life; isn't indoctrinating anyone into a religion; isn't doing anything to discriminate people on the basis of religious belief. He's not even a theist, of all sins! So, tell me why the heck you feel so self-entitled to be rude to other people just because they hold a different view from yours? If you feel some crime is being committed against reason, the remedy is to reason, not to insult. If you feel that the discourse isn't honest, correct it with honesty. If you detect dogmas that don't merit immunity to disproof, fight dogmas with open-mindedness, not scorn. And surely, pick your opponents more wisely.

  If reason is used to advance the enjoyment of life, I'm a rationalist. But if reason is but a flag, used merely to win debates and an excuse to be insulting to others, you're a disgrace to your own cause.
• 
  233

  What is BELIEF ?

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

  what exactly is "belief"?.

  is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Either you can't read or won't read, Viviane. Go back and read that it wasn't me that was asking for a definition of "god". That is the sort of thing that should be asked to a theist. It's nonsensical to be insistingly asking to a non-theist like me to define a god. It's stupid and obtuse. For the empth time, I don't know.

  But I get it. You need a definition given by a theist so you can then debunk it. But when a non-theist asks you to logically explain how come your so-called absence of belief in deities that stems from lack of evidence for their existence is in itself different than a belief proper, what I observe is some sort of broken record, headless chicken attitude.

  Eden
• 
  233

  What is BELIEF ?

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

  what exactly is "belief"?.

  is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Let's see Cofty work out from THAT definition. (if one can call it such)

  After all, he expects such definition to attempt to answer to:

  Does it interact with humans? Does it hear and answer prayers? In what way is the world different than if it didn't exist? Did it create the world? Did it create humans?

  I don't see any of that in your definition. My take is that Cofty would classify that as:

  Vague, vacuous nonsense.

  Unless, of course, he would open an exception for you. But let's wait and see. Shouldn't take long now.

  Eden
• 
  233

  What is BELIEF ?

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

  what exactly is "belief"?.

  is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  I would classify those amongst "strong atheists". But I concede that it may be a different group altogether.

  Eden
• 
  30

  Tear down the whole of South Africa

  by Louise in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there was a statue outside the rhodes university.

  a 30 year old black student then threw his pooh on the statue and that got the ball rolling to pull the statue down.

  the board of this university built also gives out burseries and grants to previously disadvantaged black south africans and not disadvantaged black south africans.. there has been a huge debate in the country and now the statue has been removed.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Racism is racism, no matter what color of skin of the one exercising it.

  Eden
• 
  47

  Apostasy Trial on YouTube - Undercover spycam part 1

  by RayPublisher in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for only the second time in internet history, a video recording of a secret jehovah's witness apostasy trial has been published online on the jwstruggle youtube channel.

  follow isaac's story here:.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se9rh6qux0o&feature=youtu.be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  WOW ! WOW ! WOW!

  Elder - "Forget about 1914, forget about 1975, 1874 ... those are dates that are wordily history. Jehovah has got nothing to do with it."

  Are these guys even serious?? Hypocrites!

  "We don't go by C. T Russel"

  But you still go by JF Rutherford, right?

  "In 1914 Jehovah placed is royal Son upon his holy hill in Zion..." Watchtower 1932 Nov 1 p.325

  Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites, liars!
  
  

  On a side note: Observe the ongoing trend to discard 1914 sometime in the future.

  Eden