The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

The JW Cult

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...6 7 8 9 10 · >>
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#106New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 04:25:33
@shinobinoz Said

Hate speech & speech that incites or causes pain is something that must be weighed as to it's intent & thus it's free usage.


I agree, and that's what governments consider when framing laws. It is not however the role of individuals or groups to try and take on the role of government. It is not the role of individuals and groups to seek to prevent those who hold views to which the do not subscribe from expressing their opinions in a public format. Yet this happens all too often.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#107New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 04:30:46
"Forcing beliefs on people is the issue"

Again, this is a matter of perspective. If for example you talk about the damaging use of native mascots you are (presumably) trying to 'educate' people and agitate for change. People who dont agree with you may feel as though you are trying to force your beliefs on them. As i said, whether someone is expressing their views or trying to force them upon others is a matter of perspective.
chaski On March 28, 2024
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#108New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 04:36:48
@shadowen Said

Bigotry (much like offence) is generally subjective and is usually dependant upon someone's values/views.


No it isn't.

Pretending like it is, is making excuses to abuse others.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#109New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 04:38:41
The Paha Sapa was a side bar to begin with which you brought up. The fact remains that what was done in this country was by the supposed authority of christianity & manifest destiny which controlled & incited the onslaught.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#110New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 04:39:55
@shadowen Said

Bigotry (much like offence) is generally subjective and is usually dependant upon someone's values/views. People call others bigots if they hold views different to their own. You may consider someone a bigot whereas someone else wont. That other person may infact consider you a bigot. I would say that in a democracy people have the right to freely voice their opinion provided they do not act illegally. People have the right to agitate for change within the democratic framework. They will then either be successful or unsuccessful. What is extremely dangerous is a situation where one group of people determine what views may be publicly aired. That is the role of government.

If the Mormons are promoting violence then surely that would be illegal. It would be here. The question of intolerance though is highly subjective.


Been there done that. Still fighting it.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#111New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 05:07:35
@shinobinoz Said

The Paha Sapa was a side bar to begin with which you brought up. The fact remains that what was done in this country was by the supposed authority of christianity & manifest destiny which controlled & incited the onslaught.


Your OWN link earlier to manifest destiny stated a number of different driving forces. It stated religion was one for some but others were driven by forces such as economic ones etc. So no it wasnt.

Anyway, not going over all that again.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#112New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 05:12:47
Bigotry - INTOLERANCE towards those who hold different opinions from oneself

People/Groups such as the LL are great ones for calling others intolerant and bigots whilst their very words and actions fully meet the definition of bigotry and intolerance.

Eg Seeking to prevent those who hold views different to your own from publicly expressing their views would reasonably meet the definition of bigotry for such action is surely a sign of intolerance.
chaski On March 28, 2024
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#113New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 05:38:33
@shadowen Said


People/Groups such as the LL are great ones for calling others intolerant and bigots whilst their very words and actions fully meet the definition of bigotry and intolerance.



Complete and willfully ignorant bulls***.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#114New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 05:48:48
@chaski Said

Complete and willfully ignorant bulls***.


Thank you for illustrating my point
chaski On March 28, 2024
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#115New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 06:46:50
@shadowen Said

Thank you for illustrating my point


Feel free to explain.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#116New Post! Jan 10, 2017 @ 22:55:42
@shadowen Said

Your OWN link earlier to manifest destiny stated a number of different driving forces. It stated religion was one for some but others were driven by forces such as economic ones etc. So no it wasnt.

Anyway, not going over all that again.


What was done was in this country came from a religious sect point of view. That point of view was given supposed authority by their deity. That authority & bias was esconched in law. Laws made to lie, cheat & steal. Not opinion. Fact.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#117New Post! Jan 11, 2017 @ 01:38:34
Uhuh. I'm guessing this is one of your 'facts' like how the Black Hills gold rush and the US decision to break the 1868 Treaty of Laramie was down to a missionary!

No point trying to discuss anything to do with history with you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their 'teachings' are also their opinions. Just the same as the 'teachings' of BLM are their opinions etc etc etc. What the video is doing is expressing their views on a particular topic. Your idea of "leaving others out of their teachings" seems to mean that they shouldn't publicly express their opinion. If however you are saying they have a right to express their views then fair enough. If you are saying for example that they have a right to publish the video in question then fine (obviously doesnt mean you agree with them). If however you are saying they shouldnt make public their views then this is hypocritical and a dangerous attempt at a form of censorship.

So any chance you might like to clearly state your position? Should individuals and groups be allowed to publicly express their views (assuming they adhere to the law of the land) or not? Should for example the JW's be allowed to 'publish' videos like the one that started this whole thread? Yes or no?
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#118New Post! Jan 11, 2017 @ 04:24:28
@shadowen Said

Bigotry (much like offence) is generally subjective and is usually dependant upon someone's values/views. People call others bigots if they hold views different to their own. You may consider someone a bigot whereas someone else wont. That other person may infact consider you a bigot. I would say that in a democracy people have the right to freely voice their opinion provided they do not act illegally. People have the right to agitate for change within the democratic framework. They will then either be successful or unsuccessful. What is extremely dangerous is a situation where one group of people determine what views may be publicly aired. That is the role of government.

If the Mormons are promoting violence then surely that would be illegal. It would be here. The question of intolerance though is highly subjective.


That is a dangerous argument, because it shifts the focus from people's words to their actions. Did Shino or Chaski go into the offices or homes of the creators of these videos and smash all of their recording and animation equipment? No. Is calling something bigoted or hateful the equivalent of stopping them from getting their message out? I don't think so. You are allowed to say whatever you want as long as it does not directly incite, but you are not owed an audience because of the First Amendment.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#119New Post! Jan 11, 2017 @ 04:55:33
@shadowen Said

Uhuh. I'm guessing this is one of your 'facts' like how the Black Hills gold rush and the US decision to break the 1868 Treaty of Laramie was down to a missionary!

No point trying to discuss anything to do with history with you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their 'teachings' are also their opinions. Just the same as the 'teachings' of BLM are their opinions etc etc etc. What the video is doing is expressing their views on a particular topic. Your idea of "leaving others out of their teachings" seems to mean that they shouldn't publicly express their opinion. If however you are saying they have a right to express their views then fair enough. If you are saying for example that they have a right to publish the video in question then fine (obviously doesnt mean you agree with them). If however you are saying they shouldnt make public their views then this is hypocritical and a dangerous attempt at a form of censorship.

So any chance you might like to clearly state your position? Should individuals and groups be allowed to publicly express their views (assuming they adhere to the law of the land) or not? Should for example the JW's be allowed to 'publish' videos like the one that started this whole thread? Yes or no?


I've already pointed out that the law of the land has a religious bias. And De Smet wrote several times of gold. Don't suppose people just decided it was there & went on a lark do you?
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#120New Post! Jan 11, 2017 @ 05:40:35
@shinobinoz Said

...De Smet wrote several times of gold. Don't suppose people just decided it was there & went on a lark do you?




I have already explained what triggered the Black Hills gold rush and it sure as hell wasnt De Smet! Actually there are a number of primary documents that show that after the Californian gold rush (1848-55) De Smet and his fellow Jesuits were determined to do all they could to keep the whites out of the Black Hills and the surrounding area.

Obviously you didnt bother to read my answer to the triggers and driving forces behind the gold rush in the Black Hills and the decision by the US Government to break the 1868 Treaty of Laramie . If you did you wouldn't be grimly holding onto a view that is not simply unsupported by historical fact but is actually contradicted by it. This is why trying to discuss historical issues with you is a waste of time.

Anyway, just in case you decide you actually want to read my response here it is again....

In the early 1860's De Smet told a dinner party (who were discussing the prospect of gold in the west) that he had come across gold in his travels, but despite all efforts to persuade him to reveal the location of his discovery he refused to do so saying "he did not wish his children (the native peoples) to be disturbed". Multiple sources all confirm that De Smet never told anyone where he had found gold.

Let us look though at the background to the 'discovery' of gold in the Black Hills. Soon after the discovery of gold in Wyoming and Montana, the belief became prevalent that gold in paying quantities could he found in the Black Hills. Lieutenant Warren, of the United States topographical engineers, made a report of his visit to the Hills in 1857, in which he said: "The Black Hills are composed of the same formations of stratified rocks as are found in the gold bearing gulches of the Wind river and Big Horn mountains where gold has been found in paying quantities."

This belief was further strengthened by the widespread circulation of stories, mythical or otherwise, of immense finds of the precious metals there by the native peoples. One of these stories went back as far as 1811, when natives would come to a trading post of the American Fur Company, located at the confluence of the north and south forks of the Big Cheyenne river, about twenty-five miles from the Hills, bearing fine nuggets of gold, which they would exchange for sugar, coffee, gaudy trinkets and alcohol. These natives always claimed that
they found the gold somewhere in the Black Hills country, but neither threats nor bribes could induce them to betray the exact locality. In 1862 two natives brought about twenty thousand dollars' worth of gold to Fort Laramie, and sold it to Mr. Bullock, the post trader.

In 1857, Lieutenant Warren started to enter the Hills, even though he had been told by priests to keep clear of the area as it was sacred ground (how does this fit in with your narrative?). He went anyway.

In 1870 a company was organized at Bozeman to explore the Hills. The company was called "The Big Horn Mountain and Black Hills Mining Association". In the spring of 1874 this association sent an expedition of 150 well armed and well mounted men, accompanied by Colonel Murnn's battery, which consisted of one small cannon, to the eastern slope of the Big Horn mountains, with instructions to reach the Black Hills if
possible.

The same year the government sent an expedition to the Black Hills under the command of Gen. George A. Custer. According to R. B. Cowan, acting secretary of the interior, it was sent out "merely as a military reconnaissance of the country for the purpose of ascertaining the best location if in future it should become necessary to establish there a military post." Nevertheless a number of scientists, practical miners, etc., accompanied the expedition, and the result of their investigations was included in General Custer's report upon his return.

In his report to the adjutant general, for the department of Dakota, General Custer gave a flattering account of the country, particularly regarding its possibilities for agricultural pursuits. That part of his report, bearing on the question of gold mining said: "The miners report that they found gold among the roots of the grass, and from that point to the lowest point reached, gold was found in paying quantities. It has not required an expert to find gold in the Black Hills, as men without former experiences in mining have discovered it at an expense of but little time or labour." The report also stated that the
scientists with the expedition were satisfied that lead and silver could be found in paying quantities.

Custer's report of gold in the Black Hills was widely publicised and came during a time of significant economic hardship for the US as they were caught up in the great panic of 1873. An official government report of gold therefore provoked great excitement. Although old miners had never given much credence to the stories told of the fabulous wealth in the Hills, they hailed with delight the expedition of General
Custer, as a sure means of creating public sentiment in favour of opening up the country to settlement, which would in time force the government to act. They understood that the occupation of the Black Hills meant that the whole country west of them across the Powder river and Big Horn mountains must soon follow. General Custer, in his report, referred to the attitude of the native peoples as a "dog in the manger policy." He stated that they made no effort to develop the resources of the Hills themselves, and they were opposed to their development by the whites. General Custer recommended that the Black Hills either be opened to settlement, or be occupied as a military reservation.

As soon as the tenor of this report became generally known, companies were formed in various parts of the Northwest to go to the Black Hills with Sioux City and Yankton acting among the first.

In 1872, prior to the Custer expedition, territorial officials were already considering harvesting the rich timber resources of the Black Hills, to be floated down the Cheyenne River to the Missouri, where new plains settlements needed lumber.

And so here we have it. You desperately try and blame religion for the gold rush in the Black Hills and the subsequent decision by the US government to break the 1868 Treaty of Laramie by referencing a missionary who never actually told anyone where gold was to be found. You blame religion even though it was official US government expeditions that sparked the gold rush. Expeditions that included scientists and miners. That alone should give you a hint as to what the driving forces were and they sure as hell werent religious. But why let facts get in the way.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...6 7 8 9 10 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Mon Sep 01, 2008 @ 18:24
1 344
New posts   Writing
Wed Jul 23, 2014 @ 15:59
1 1028
New posts   Performing Arts
Wed Apr 27, 2011 @ 12:27
21 5386
New posts   College Life
Fri Oct 30, 2009 @ 15:45
33 1887
New posts   Relationships
Mon Feb 09, 2009 @ 17:32
36 2430