Sunday afternoon lynchings

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Have you read the court transcripts of the case? I have and I disagree with the courts findings. In fact its unprecedented in my opinion. So I reject your assertion that its a dark epoch in fact it appears to me to be nothing more than an attempt by her step parents to make some money and she was prompted by them to make a case. Her own testimony c ...[text shortened]... rwise you will be reasoning from a position of ignorance and we wouldn't want that now would we.

They were found guilty. Your disagreement with the verdict does not change the fact.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
All religions, sects and cults have dark episodes in their history. (Without exception).

For example; in California in June 2012, Alameda County Superior Court ordered the Watch Tower Society to pay $21 million in punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, after finding that the Society's policy to not disclose the child abuse history ...[text shortened]... ation or to report abuse to authorities contributed to the sexual abuse of a nine-year-old girl.

This thread is very interesting: Thread 162947

The JW's policy of covering up child sex abuse is carefully argued but page after page of counter-arguments are just as carefully ignored.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Have you read the court transcripts of the case? I have and I disagree with the courts findings. In fact its unprecedented in my opinion. So I reject your assertion that its a dark epoch in fact it appears to me to be nothing more than an attempt by her step parents to make some money and she was prompted by them to make a case. Her own testimony c ...[text shortened]... rance and we wouldn't want that now would we. The judge actually reduced the damages on appeal.

Well of course you disagree with the Courts findings. That was a given.

Why would i need to read the court transcripts? A Judge did that and i trust his opinion more than i do yours, for obvious reasons.

It was though just an example of the daftness of throwing stones when you reside in a glass Kingdom Hall.

Edit: Yes, the Judge reduced the damages, but didn't change the verdict!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke

Well of course you disagree with the Courts findings. That was a given.

Why would i need to read the court transcripts? A Judge did that and i trust his opinion more than i do yours, for obvious reasons.

It was though just an example of the daftness of throwing stones when you reside in a glass Kingdom Hall.

If anyone is interested in robbie's intellectual and interpersonal behaviour when defending his organisation over a child sex abuse law suit, it's well worth looking at Thread 148246 from about page 14 onwards. Astonishing stuff.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Well of course you disagree with the Courts findings. That was a given.

Why would i need to read the court transcripts? A Judge did that and i trust his opinion more than i do yours, for obvious reasons.

It was though just an example of the daftness of throwing stones when you reside in a glass Kingdom Hall.

How do you know i you have never read the transcripts? have you never heard of a miscarriage of justice? Already you are attempting to reason from a position of ignorance.

I don't care what you think I am interested in facts, your opinion is meaningless to anyone but you. Its certainly meaningless to me. Why you think it holds some sway I cannot say.

I disagree with the court findings because I have read the court transcripts. You have not and therefore you are reasoning from a position of ignorance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
People like me and like Duchess64 are prepared to use what is termed discernment, that is that we look at an issue and attempt to draw conclusions from what we understand. Thus I stated that it appears to me that the teachings at those sermons must have been insipid. This is based on the fact that those who attended were not moved to compassion or ...[text shortened]... to those Christians who perpetrated those acts? I think so. How else are we to account for it?

So your discernment led you to the conclusion the sermons must have been 'insipid'?! Wow, what cutting edge insight you must have.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So your discernment led you to the conclusion the sermons must have been 'insipid'?! Wow, what cutting edge insight you must have.

unworthy of serious comment

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't care what you think I am interested in facts, your opinion is meaningless to anyone but you. Its certainly meaningless to me. Why you think it holds some sway I cannot say.

Doesn't this also apply to your opinion that the judgement was wrong?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b] Already you are attempting to reason from a position of ignorance.

And you from a position of denial.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
And you from a position of denial.

I disagree because I have read the court transcripts, that is not a position of denial, its a position of having made an informed judgement. Please find the tone control and give it a good twist.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I disagree because I have read the court transcripts, that is not a position of denial, its a position of having made an informed judgement. Please find the tone control and give it a good twist.

People can read all about how robbie "read the court transcripts" and how he behaved as he used them to defend his organisation here Thread 148246 from about page 14 onwards.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I disagree because I have read the court transcripts, that is not a position of denial, its a position of having made an informed judgement. Please find the tone control and give it a good twist.

Hand on your heart, was there even the slightest possibility that you would have agreed with the transcripts after reading them?

Originally posted by FMF
People can read all about how robbie "read the court transcripts" and how he behaved as he used them to defend his organisation here Thread 148246 from about page 14 onwards.

Thanks for the link.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Hand on your heart, was there even the slightest possibility that you would have agreed with the transcripts after reading them?

yes of course, justice is justice.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Thanks for the link.

On that thread, robbie tries every shill-trick in the book, including trying to smear the victim of the child sex abuse [bottom of page 16], denying that any sex abuse had occured even though both the abuser and the organisation had admitted that it had, and heaps and heaps of sometimes quite vicious personal abuse [page after page, I lost count] for those that didn't go for robbie's I-read-the-transcripts arguments.