Posts by Gentledawn

Yup, realizing one's true mortality sucks. They also used dead loved ones as a carrot-on-a-stick approach for recruitment. Still stinging from that one, too.

74

Removed from JW.ORG: Warwick Photo Gallery 3 (January Through April 2015)

by wifibandit in

the warwick gallery #1 and gallery #2 are still up.. i have #3 backed up: http://imgur.com/a/klnlg.

also pulled: .

wallkill photo gallery 2.

Gentledawn

cappytan - "Feminazi..."

Instead of attacking my argument, you attack me. That's a logical fallacy known as "ad hominem".

[from Wikipedia]

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than addressing the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."

I used reasoning in the exact same way the EXJW reddit community responded to the Jehovah's Witness IAMA post: if you make a claim, give proof/evidence. Claims are not evidence, in and of themselves.

Watchtower uses these sorts of tricks all the time. They make grandiose claims, attack people using ad hominem fallacies. They treat women like 2nd class human beings. Not equal to men at all. Inferior. In every single way, women must bow to every baptized male's opinion in the congregation, even if the male is a 6 or 8 years old.

LeVar Burton gives a stunning performance as Kunta Kinte in "Roots" :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGTYBbcEvHg#t=5m20s

The scene is all about breaking another person's will. Coercive persuasion. Undue influence. Brainwashing.

74

Removed from JW.ORG: Warwick Photo Gallery 3 (January Through April 2015)

by wifibandit in

the warwick gallery #1 and gallery #2 are still up.. i have #3 backed up: http://imgur.com/a/klnlg.

also pulled: .

wallkill photo gallery 2.

Gentledawn

OrphanCrow

Nope, I'm in agreement with you.

I've done my fair share of construction and automotive work long before becoming a JW. In fact, a guy asked me to grab the other end of an engine block (minus the head, valves and pistons... it was being taken in for an acid dip) in order to help him carry and load it into the back of his truck. There were other guys standing around. IMO, the only reason he asked me for help and not the other guys milling around is because I would do it. It had very little to do with actual capabilities. Again, this is my opinion. Those other men were pretty well known for being a gaggle of gossiping lazy asses. Ha.

And yeah. I'm a woman, too.

74

Removed from JW.ORG: Warwick Photo Gallery 3 (January Through April 2015)

by wifibandit in

the warwick gallery #1 and gallery #2 are still up.. i have #3 backed up: http://imgur.com/a/klnlg.

also pulled: .

wallkill photo gallery 2.

Gentledawn

Vidiot

@ cappytan...

"Perpetually offended" would be a terrific username.

Yeah, because calling someone out for their bigotry is wrong. In fact, let's flip it over to the person who actually called em out on it - the ~~apostate~~ non-conformist, who doesn't buy the explainerating, bullsh!tting, or 'oops, I was talking numbers, not qualifications'.

Here's a fun illustration: Can you imagine if the TV show "Roots" had been made into a campy farce /comedic romp about how the black folk just stumble-bummed around and enslaved themselves, instead of how slavery actually occurred historically?

Would you be upset with a black person calling out the campy production for what it really was: a fucking bigoted farce, made to white-wash history?

Now imagine someone making a statement/claim that there are a large number of unqualified people on a list, after making note out loud that 35% of the number are black people. They are the only subset on that list enumerated by the claimant before making the statement.

Is that okay? To insinuate that someone is disqualified for a particular field of work, based solely on the claimants bigotry / preconceived notions? No facts, evidence, or anything else to back up why that subset of the work group is unqualified.

74

Removed from JW.ORG: Warwick Photo Gallery 3 (January Through April 2015)

by wifibandit in

the warwick gallery #1 and gallery #2 are still up.. i have #3 backed up: http://imgur.com/a/klnlg.

also pulled: .

wallkill photo gallery 2.

Gentledawn

So what? You didn't do the same with mine or OrphanCrows comment. Why don't you practice what you preach, "bro"?

74

Removed from JW.ORG: Warwick Photo Gallery 3 (January Through April 2015)

by wifibandit in

the warwick gallery #1 and gallery #2 are still up.. i have #3 backed up: http://imgur.com/a/klnlg.

also pulled: .

wallkill photo gallery 2.

Gentledawn

It's not about men's rights or misandry or redpills or even political correctness. Or so-called "dank memes".

Yeah, most of us reddit, too. How 'bout that?

74

Removed from JW.ORG: Warwick Photo Gallery 3 (January Through April 2015)

by wifibandit in

the warwick gallery #1 and gallery #2 are still up.. i have #3 backed up: http://imgur.com/a/klnlg.

also pulled: .

wallkill photo gallery 2.

Gentledawn

Listener : There is no insult it's highly unlikely that a great number of them would be qualified unless the org went on a special recruitment drive specifically for females.

Didn't the bOrg have ~~work~~ volunteer applications, in order to sift out the unskilled and unqualified?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that females are 'almost always' ("Thats got to mean a lot of unqualified workers", followed by "great number of them [the women]") unqualified for construction, engineering and building work?

Listener: Under one of the photo's is a comment that states females make up 35% of the workers. Thats got to mean a lot of unqualified workers.

Sooo misogynistic. Doesn't matter if you're a woman or not. Making sweeping derogatory generalizations about a specific subset of the population usually flags the speaker as a bigot of one sort or another.

OrphanCrow:Yeah..but you didn't say numbers, you said qualified. Big difference.

Yup.

8

Invisibility - Not Just For Jesus, finds the Royal Commission.

by alfred newman in

so shocking!

the u.k. seems a bit on fire over the scandal there too.

people are upset about what the children have had done to them.

Gentledawn

"Alfred E. Neuman" is the name of the smiling geeky guy on the covers of "MAD" magazine.

24

What are the current rules about vaping from the GB?

by purrpurr in

jw
friends

i mean e cigs and vaping.

not even tobacco inhaling but inhaling other stuff like herbs etc.

is this allowed?

Gentledawn

The fact that adults have to ask what they're "allowed" to do is pretty insulting, imo.

They don't say anything about GMOs? Pesticides? Cloned animals sold in the meat market?

.. Nothing? Not a word? Not even a "use your bible-stained conscience"?