-Removed-if you believe in your side of the debate there is never a reason to be abusive, i normally find the loser has to resort to petty, "my dads bigger than you're dad"
Being called the son of satan or a murderer is not nice, but calling JW an evil cult protecting child molesters is by far worse, do you think all muslims are isis?
the passive aggressive jibes? you say no one notices them but you and a small group on here. could it not be true you are looking for them? maybe none actually exist apart from in you're head.
The truth is GB is a more liked on here than you will ever be, that must hurt
23 Jan 16
1 edit
***************************
IGNORE THE TROLL See above
***************************
Interesting question, FMF. I find it very illuminating to think about that
rule when faced in real life with a conundrum involving other people.
Not necessarily because it automatically improves my treatment
of those I am liaising with, but because it tells me tons about myself.
Do I really want to be treated this or that way? Why? Is there a reason
behind it?
The most complex portion of learning, though, comes from the fact
that we are not always prioritizing the same principles, as they
gain or lose emphasis based on the circumstances, e.g. stress, peer
pressure, relaxation, hurry, etc.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERThe discussions about the JWs beliefs and policies have been going on for years here.
Being called the son of satan or a murderer is not nice, but calling JW an evil cult protecting child molesters is by far worse
This is worth a look:
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/01/jehovahs-witnesses-fostered-distrust-of-secular-authority-royal-commission-counsel
I don't subscribe to religious notions of "evil", but I think if the word is going to be bandied about at all, it might well apply if the claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia received 1,066 allegations of child sex abuse against its members and did not report any of them to police turns out to be true. Covering up the sexual abuse of children or trying to defend such cover ups would surely be "far worse", as you put it, than calling those that do such things "evil", don't you think?
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFany cover up is disgusting, all deserved to be punished by the law.
The discussions about the JWs beliefs and policies have been going on for years here.
This is worth a look:
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/01/jehovahs-witnesses-fostered-distrust-of-secular-authority-royal-commission-counsel
I don't subscribe to religious notions of "evil", but I think if the word is going to be bandied about at all, ...[text shortened]... y be "far worse", as you put it, than calling those that do such things "evil", don't you think?
but why have a go at one JW member? It's dangerous to tar all with the same brush, hence my "are all muslims in isis"? post.
was the "cover up" from the police or media? there is a huge difference
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERIf you're interested in the topic you could look at these threads:
any cover up is disgusting, all deserved to be punished by the law.
but why have a go at one JW member? It's dangerous to tar all with the same brush, hence my "are all muslims in isis"? post.
was the "cover up" from the police or media? there is a huge difference
Thread 166741
Thread 162947
Thread 148246 (from about page 13 onwards)
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFthanks i will
If you're interested in the topic you could look at these threads:
Thread 166741
Thread 162947
Thread 148246 (from about page 13 onwards)
be back in a few days, by the time i read all that..🙂
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERYes it devastatingly back fired on FMF when he attempted to state that I have defended any alleged cover up.
if you believe in your side of the debate there is never a reason to be abusive, i normally find the loser has to resort to petty, "my dads bigger than you're dad"
Being called the son of satan or a murderer is not nice, but calling JW an evil cult protecting child molesters is by far worse, do you think all muslims are isis?
the passive aggressive ji ...[text shortened]... m in you're head.
The truth is GB is a more liked on here than you will ever be, that must hurt
Not only could he provide not a single iota of any alleged 'cover up', but when repeatedly asked to provide a single quotation for his allegations that I had defended a cover up he could not do so and was forced to repeat the same allegation over and over again if it would somehow make them real. Poor guy was probably sitting with his fingers and his toes crossed hoping that they might become real.
Further to that his allegations were actually refuted was faced with a rather damning testimony from a source that he himself cited demonstrating that I had personally shown that the correct course of action is to go directly to the police if any criminality was even suggested and that secular law supersedes penitent privilege. Naturally he started to flounder around clutching at straws and frothing at the mouth and his hound divesgeester was left barfing at the wind.
Yes these are far more serious allegations and far more sinister than anything Bobs have ever done.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo what do you make of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia receiving 1,066 allegations of child sex abuse against its members and not reporting any of them to police?
I had personally shown that the correct course of action is to go directly to the police if any criminality was even suggested and that secular law supersedes penitent privilege.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFIn fact most people would rather subscribe to "treat me as I wanted to be treated"...
I'd imagine most people subscribe to this 'rule'.
Do you?
How well does it work in practice in a 'public space' like the one we have here?.
In fact especially in a situation of comparable anonymity as here on the site it doesn't hold. People treat people far worse as if they would face to face (or so I hope) we have self-proclaimed prophets of all kinds and even those self-ascribing to the most humble and peaceful of ideas seem to be able to treat others with the slightest possible respect. (and no I won't name names).
In my opinion when Jesus was puitting forward the idea it was in the face of those who thought thye already were the good ones.
24 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFthere's some form of this golden rule in nearly ever text deemed holy by one person or another...
I'd imagine most people subscribe to this 'rule'.
Do you?
How well does it work in practice in a 'public space' like the one we have here?.
this also holds true as an agnostic or atheist moral compass...
i shoot for the kindness thing, myself,
but i'm told i miss a bit...
as for this public space, it is only what we make it...