lawsuit, supposed blackmail attempt....

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

charity wrote:My answers in bold.

the road to hana wrote:
charity wrote:But they will probably get quite a bit of money out of the guillible ex-Mormons. Notice their little "dontate" button? Estimates are that when the Tanners filed their suit against FAIR on the registration of domain names, which was dismissed rather quickly, they took in a lot more for donations to their legal fund than they could have possibly paid their lawyers.


Charity, I have three specific questions for you:

Do you think a child who is abused by a parent should be able to sue that parent for damages?

For counseling expenses, yes. For "lottery" winnings, no.


Do you believe anyone who is abused and tells clergy who fails to report it should be able to bring action against the clergy who failed to report it?

If it is against someone not connected to the church, no. There are many other avenues of reporting. If it is telling one clergyman that a clergyman of the same church is the abuser, then yes.


Do you believe anyone who leaves an abusive spouse should expect the support of their clergy?

I think that would be a reasonable expectation, depending on what you mean by "support." Church assistance in food commodities and rent subsidy? "There, there, dear, you are right, he was a brute." Church disciplinary action against the abuser? What?

If you are talking about a situtation where both abuser and victim are both known to the clergy, you have a more complicated circumstance than where the abused can go to an advocacy agency, and then it is all black and white, and she is completely innocent and he is a kin of Satan.

But then, in the imperfect world, we can't expect the reasonable to take place. So it isn't a matter of suing the clergy.

In my opinion, unless there are damages which can be remediated with money, money is not the solution. Today, if somebody crosses their eyes at you, you can sue them for causing you "stress." It is part of the "entitlement" theory. Children are entitled to a set of loving parents. Well, yes. And if you don't get them, there isn't anything money can do to make up for the fact that you were on the short end of the stick. Go on from where you are. Learn and be a good parent yourself.

Did you tell someone you needed help and they didn't help you? Go tell someone else. Don;'t just roll over and play helpless.

Should you be able to expect support and help from people? Yes. We are all supposed to be our brother's keepers. What if you don't get it? Get over it. Be as good a person as you can and help others.


So do you just automatically assume that if someone is claiming "abuse" their claim is without merit?
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

the road to hana wrote:
So do you just automatically assume that if someone is claiming "abuse" their claim is without merit?


Until they prove otherwise, yes.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Abinadi's Fire
_Emeritus
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:49 pm

Post by _Abinadi's Fire »

The Nehor wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:
charity wrote:
CaliforniaKid wrote:
whose estimates?


The Danites. We have our sources. Over on the MA&D board, we have a little smilie that is a spy guy. Where is a good picture that says moire than a thousand words when you need one.


Could you disclose what amount of money the estimates estimated?


As a Danite Squad Leader I can help here. They received:

$6,073.54 in cash
$143.00 in Toys'R'Us money
$200,456.00 in Monopoly money
an emu
7 Chuck E Cheese tokens
1 autographed photo of Leonard Nimoy
1 Taco Bell 2 Burrito Supremes for the price of 1 coupon
1 piece of the Berlin Wall
6 Geese a Laying
1 surplus Soviet ICBM (warhead sold separately)
8 Love Letters

Glad I could help.


heh - sounds like Dr. Strangelove - Maj "King" Kong: one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings. Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

Imwashingmypirate wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
Imwashingmypirate wrote:
Isn't this MA&D??




This is MDD.

The other board is MADB.

The other board is not FAIR, even though it occasionally pretends to be.

Neither is RFM.


OKAY. Now I am confused. Can you provide links?


Sure.

You're on the board in the first line http://www.mormondiscussions.com

Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board (MADB) http://www.mormonapologetics.org

The third line is a pun, because the MADB used to be called the FAIR board (and is not FAIR) http://www.fair-lds.org

Recovery From Mormonism (RFM) http://www.exmormon.org
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

The Nehor wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
So do you just automatically assume that if someone is claiming "abuse" their claim is without merit?


Until they prove otherwise, yes.


Really? Someone who communes with deity wants proof of abuse but not of a vision?
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

edit because the comment wasn't aimed at me. Sorry.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

the road to hana wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
So do you just automatically assume that if someone is claiming "abuse" their claim is without merit?


Until they prove otherwise, yes.


Really? Someone who communes with deity wants proof of abuse but not of a vision?


Well, I am a fan of the concept of western justice with the ideal of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Accusations of abuse and other criminal allegations tend to deprive people of wealth and freedom.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

the road to hana wrote:
My difficulty had to do with Charity's statement, "They will probably get quite a bit of money out of the gullible ex-Mormons."

I think it's possible, even very likely, that Jennifer's claims of abuse have merit, whether or not her case does. Charity's statement seemed insensitive to the larger issues involved.


I don't know the person's case. The link provided had such little print, I couldn't wade through the claim that was filed. It is my general philosophy that money does not make up for the misbehavior, even extreme cases, EXCEPT if there is something money specificially will fix. Counseling (which may or may not be useful), cosemetic surgery to fix a visible scar, etc. If there is no credible medical personnel presenting a bill, then there is nothing money can do to "fix" a bad upbringing, even in cases of abuse.

There are only two reasons for asking for money damages and neither indicate anything positive about the person doing the asking. 1. They want revenge against the person who hurt them. 2. They want to have a lifestyle their own efforts don't merit. If they really wanted the abuser to stop, to not hurt anyone else, they would press criminal charges and get him/her incarcerated.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
My difficulty had to do with Charity's statement, "They will probably get quite a bit of money out of the gullible ex-Mormons."

I think it's possible, even very likely, that Jennifer's claims of abuse have merit, whether or not her case does. Charity's statement seemed insensitive to the larger issues involved.


I don't know the person's case. The link provided had such little print, I couldn't wade through the claim that was filed.


Having admitted that, don't you think that just maybe it was somewhat premature to comment on the case if you were not familiar with it?
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

The Nehor wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
So do you just automatically assume that if someone is claiming "abuse" their claim is without merit?


Until they prove otherwise, yes.


Really? Someone who communes with deity wants proof of abuse but not of a vision?


Well, I am a fan of the concept of western justice with the ideal of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Accusations of abuse and other criminal allegations tend to deprive people of wealth and freedom.


And how does that relate with requiring proof of a vision? Claims of a vision deprive people of wealth and freedom?
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Post Reply