Disqus - Latest Comments for Jennifer

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

Jennifer — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:27:21 -0000

Tom Sheepandgoats,

Your examples of "cognitive dissonance" seem to be examples of people who simply changed their minds, or beliefs from one way of thinking to another over time. This happens, it may be slightly uncomfortable while making the shift, but I don't believe that this is a true case of cognitive dissonance.

For example, if there is a person who used to believe in evolution, but now believes in creation, that is a shift in beliefs, but not cognitive dissonance. If a person who believes in creation discovers some things about evolution that makes sense to them, and begins to believe that those ideas are true, while still believing in the idea that God created man 6000 years ago, well that is cognitive dissonance. It is quite different then simply changing a belief, not that changing a belief is simple, but it is compaired to trying to keep everything okay in your mind when you are experiencing cognitive dissonance. Perhaps you only think the subject needs a pamphlet of info because you aren't quite grasping the concept. It may be hard to understand if you do not have an example of it in your own life to draw from.

For me, the biggest issue I had with cognitive dissonance began when Owen was born. On one level, I had a baby for the first time and when I saw other little babies and children around I could no longer separate them into a "worldly" catagory. It began to really upset me that these inocent children would soon die in armageddon because their parents weren't JW's. I began to reason with myself that they would not die, but would get another chance, along with most "worldly" people, however I also believed that Jehovah would soon destroy all the wicked, and the wicked were all the "worldly" people.

On another level, it upset me that here I was a parent with this great love for my child that I never experienced before, and yet I knew that Jehovah, our "father" would soon slaughter billions of his children, simply because they were not the correct religion. I knew why they were not the correct religion, because I had so many examples of doubts in my mind about scientific and other issues, that it made sense that most people would not be able to tell what the right path was, I only knew because I was born that way. I knew I would have never become a witness if someone had just come to my door. I had a great deal of trouble believing that Jehovah was loving and just, yet was going to decimate billions of his children.

And on yet another level, because of Owen's birth I had more intimate conections with "worldly" people than I had ever before had. My birth doula and then my therapist were a part of my life in a way that no "worldy" person had ever been before. I had a very hard time believing that either of these women would die very soon. I knew that they would because they were "worldly", yet I told myself that they were good people and they would make it. I had an equally hard time believing that all "worldy" people were wicked now that I had more connections with them. I realized that my few examples of relatives and others were probably the norm instead of the exception, and I had a very hard time understanding why God was going to kill these people.

The last thing that upset me was having to hold the belief that me and my baby would die because we were not good enough witnesses, yet I had been taught my whole life that witnesses would be the ones who would make it through armageddon. Some watchtower articles we studied indicated that JW's who weren't doing good enough would not make it, yet others suggested that all JW's would make it and even a handful of "worldly" people.

All of these conflicting ideas were too much to take after awhile and I finally allowed myself to do some real research about the religion that I was raised in, which of course cleared up all my conflicts in an unexpected way.

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

Jennifer — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:27:21 -0000

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

Jennifer — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 03:05:14 -0000

Tom SheepandGoats,

Your comments are interesting and thought provoking. About resolving CD in other ways, the examples you gave are things I told myself for years. It didn't resolve the CD, telling myself those things was part of the CD. It is what makes it so hard to deal with. Trying to reason with myself, and convince myself of alternative possibilities, and telling myself that society may be wrong about this one thing over and over again until (in my mind) the society was wrong about so many things that I finally allowed myself to wonder if perhaps they did not have the truth, but were simply a group of men seeking it. The CD does not resolve until the conflict is gone. The conflict is not gone until you can have a satisfactory answer, even if that answer may not fall into the black and white categories that my brain is used to. As JW, I had many conflicts in my mind that did not have resolution for many many years. Now that I am not a JW, I do not have them. I do not have to convince myself of things, or twist things around so that I will be okay with them, or push things to the back of my mind and try not to think about them because it is too uncomfortable. I simply don't feel that anymore.

Here are my current beliefs on your factors that keep you in;

1. JWs have unity and have overcome nationalism. Populate the earth with
only JWs and you have peace. How many groups can say that?

I think many groups can say that. Lets see; The Amish, The Menonites, The Mormons, or any Fundy Christian group really, Star Trek Fans, Green Peace members, Earth Loving Pagans, Hippies, Intellectuals, etc., etc., etc. JW's are certainly commendable in certain aspects of their unity, however, they are not the only group that could say this.

2. JWs have the only satisfying explanation for evil and suffering I have ever
encountered.

This is a subjective statement. What is satisfactory to you, may be very unsatisfying for many others. First, as Ryan pointed out, this statement is based on unscientific ground. Also, it is making the assumption that everything needs an explanation, and that there is only one satisfactory answer to any problem that life may present. Where you see black and white I see grey.

In my opinion what causes evil and suffering is the lack of a healthy continuum in many human beings today. Have you ever read The Continuum Concept by Jean Liedloff? Western civilization has destroyed the natural state of human beings. Infants are brought into the world in violence, separated from their mothers, treated like crap, and if they are male their genitals are mutilated, and this is their welcome to our planet. They are then raised with crazy ideals that have only become popular in the last few hundred years of our species existence, like forcing the infant to sleep in it's own bed and in it's own room, drink from a bottle when the breast is available, cry it out to "teach" them how to sleep through the night, spend hours and hours in solitary confinement in cribs, plastic carriers, play pens, strollers, etc., and they do not get nearly enough of the valuable "in arms" time that infants received through the ages that became a part of the human beings continuum and expectation. People these days would rather awkwardly lug around a 50 pound car seat with an infant in it than actually have to hold and touch and carry their 7 pound newborn. Now what kind of people does this produce? This is only infancy, childhood brings corporal punishment and many other unnatural states of the human existence. There are very few tribes who naturally follow the normal human continuum that have problems with evil and violence. Who has problems with evil and violent people? Western civilization, the people who have been keeping their infants at arms length instead of in their arms for ages now. But, that is just my opinion and I have no way of proving it, but it is what I believe and there is no scientific proof against it, so to me that is far more satisfying of an explanation than the JW's.

3. Ditto for old age and death.

What you need an explanation for, or an answer to, I just call the life cycle. Old age and death are normal parts of our existence. It is tough to grapple with the thought of our own demise, but not all cultures fear old age and death the way ours does. Old age is just another stage of our existence, and it should be honored and respected. Death is a part of being alive. We were already dead before we were born. Can you explain why that was? Does it really need an explanation? Neither does death. Everything deteriorates on this planet. Everything has a life cycle, even the sun and stars and planet itself have a life cycle. They have not always been here and their existence is not indefinite according to scientific findings. That is a satisfactory explanation for me, and one that has no scientific proof against it.

4. The alternative to God, evolution, is so astronomically unlikely as to be
wiped off the court on probability alone. (yes, even allowing for a tiny
speck in the vast universe and eons of time)

This one is confusing to me. Are we talking about believing in God or believing in the JW's? Those are two entirely different things. In fact, some people believe in evolution and in God. Others believe in evolution, but don't say that there is definitely not a God, because science can't prove that there is not a God. In my opinion evolution is far more plausible then the Watchtowers version of a global flood. A global flood would mean that animals had to evolve at an incredibly fast rate over the last 4000 years. Evolution means that animals developed at an incredibly slow rate over millions of years. The one that seems more plausible to me is evolution, and not a global flood. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in God, I hope there is a God. It simply means I don't believe that man is 6000 years old and that there was a global flood 4000 years ago. I believe there is a lot of proof that man evolved, and so did all the other animal species.

Also, why is evolution so "astronomically unlikely" but the belief that God was just always here is not? Where did God come from? If every watch has a maker, then who made God? If life on this planet is so complex that it is impossible that it just evolved, then God must be even more complex than that in order to create it, right? So if God is that complex, then who made God? It is impossible that he evolved or just came to be, because he is too complex, so how did he get here? If I am supposed to believe that God was always here, then how can I at the same time believe that everything must have a creator?

5. Humans can’t govern themselves. Human society has frayed absolutely over
the past century. Both these ideas are entirely in harmony with the Bible.
Both are contrary to popular thinking.

In my research of history I have found that humans have never been able to govern themselves, it is not something exclusive this last century, there are simply a lot more humans with a lot more technology than ever before. The reason that this thought harmonizes with the bible is that humans back then could not govern themselves anymore than humans now can. The way we predict the future is by analyzing the past. If your writing the bible, and you know that in the past and in the present humans couldn't govern themselves, then it isn't really going too far out on a limb to say that in the future humans will not be able to govern themselves. I also wouldn't say that human government has been a total failure. Of course, I am quick to point out it's flaws, especially under the current administration, but a lot of the earths population live in a social structure or government that at least works to prevent chaos. Not all of the earths governments have accomplished this, but some have gone above and beyond this and we americans now enjoy huge freedoms and a life that others only dream of. So, in my opinion human rule is not all bad, nor all good, it's that crazy grey area again that is hard to deal with if you like everything to add up and equal an absolute answer.

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

Jennifer — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 03:05:14 -0000

Re: rainy day

Jennifer — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:09:47 -0000

My youngest sister went to Adams Spanish in St. Paul, and I thought that was a pretty cool thing to do. She still knows conversational spanish. I would have liked to send Owen there, but now with his speech thing I think we should just get him speaking english first. I mean, he could learn another language, but speaking it is another story. I think it is pretty pointless to try to teach a second language in high school or middle school though. I think it is only beneficial if you teach it right from the beginning in an immersion fashion. I took 3 years of spanish and I can barely remember it, so it seems like that was a waste of my time. I think other countries teach english starting in elementary school, but here in america they start it too late to do any good. I guess that is because there really isn't one obvious language that americans should learn. I agree with David though, it doesn't really matter what the language is, because learning a second language at a young enough age sort of rewires your brain and makes it easy for you to learn any language. So just the act of learning any second language at a young age would make it possible for americans to learn all three, if they so desire, later on when they need it.

Re: rainy day

Jennifer — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:09:47 -0000

Re: Syd Speaks Up On Religion…

Jennifer — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:37:29 -0000

Well what kind of comments is Syd making, and who is he making them in front of?

If he is privatly telling his mother that he doesn't think he believes in god or organized religion, just because it is something on his mind since he is kind of at that age where he will want to start discussing the deeper things in life, well, in that case she should want to encourage his conversation so that she can share with him her ideas and beliefs. If that is the case, then I don't see what her problem is with the whole thing.

However, if he is making comments about religion and god in front of people that do believe in god or do belong to an orginized religion, and the comments are not him sharing his views, but saying things like "anyone who believes in god just hasn't researched enough" or "isn't intelligent", or "is under the influence of mind control", well then I can kind of see Tab's point. It's one thing to have open conversation and share your own beliefs. But if he is being critical of religion, or a belief in god, in front of people that have a religion or a belief in god, I can see how that would be something that might upset Tab, simply because she may feel that that attitude will make it hard for Syd to fit in socially. Especially if he is not fitting in socially with the people who are around them while he is with her because of his comments.

For example, I don't believe in Santa Claus, and we are not going to teach Owen to believe in this mythical character either. He has been introduced to it as a fun story that people like to talk about around the holiday season. I wont mind of he tells his friends that his family doesn't include the story of Santa Claus in their holiday celebration. However, I would not want him to be critical of a belief in Santa Claus and imply that people who do believe in him are not very intelligent or whatever. If he did this it would be rude and uncaring, it would be uncomfortable for everyone around at the time, and the person he confronts in this way might become very upset with the news that their reality is thought to be a fairy tale by someone. It would also be incorrect, because ignorance does not equal intelligance in all cases. Having that attitude about it could cause him to ruin friendships. If he simply states his beliefs, this may upset another child, but their parents could then explain this away the same way that they do when other kids don't belive in Santa or even celebrate Christmas at all. I just think there is a big difference between saying "I don't believe in Santa Claus" and saying "believing in Santa Claus is so dumb, of course he doesn't exist, there is not one shred of proof that he exists".

Re: Syd Speaks Up On Religion…

Jennifer — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:37:29 -0000

Re: Syd Speaks Up On Religion…

Jennifer — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:22:09 -0000

That is strange then if these are just private conversations between a mother and son. It wasn't clear in your orignal post that these were private conversations. When I hear "increasingly vocal" I think 'telling everyone who will listen'. If he is just trying to have a conversation with his own mother then what is the problem? It seems like she is just mad that Syd seems to be agreeing with you more on the religious side of things then with her.

Re: Syd Speaks Up On Religion…

Jennifer — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:22:09 -0000

Re: current thoughts

Jennifer — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:24:24 -0000

Yes, do add more.

Re: current thoughts

Jennifer — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:24:24 -0000

Yes, do add more.

Re: Coming up to the end…

Jennifer — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:11:05 -0000

Well? Did you make it? Did you finish the novel? You must have gotten close if you didn't finish.

Re: Coming up to the end…

Jennifer — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:11:05 -0000

Well? Did you make it? Did you finish the novel? You must have gotten close if you didn't finish.

Re: NaNoWriMo Summary

Jennifer — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:11:45 -0000

Yay! Cool, you wrote a novel. That's quite an accomplishment. Keep working on it now. Try to make your next goal of publishing it. It would be so cool to know a published author.

Re: NaNoWriMo Summary

Jennifer — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:11:45 -0000

Yay! Cool, you wrote a novel. That's quite an accomplishment. Keep working on it now. Try to make your next goal of publishing it. It would be so cool to know a published author.

Re: MySpace?

Jennifer — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:06:23 -0000

I'm so disappointed in you.

Re: MySpace?

Jennifer — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:06:23 -0000

I'm so disappointed in you.

Re: holy crap it’s cold out there…

Jennifer — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:22:15 -0000

Remember to leave 1/4" between the floor and the wall, because it will swell in the summer. Also, stagger your seams. Seems obvious, but I know someone who had to rip theirs up after forgetting to do this :-) I can't wait to see your all new living room!

Re: holy crap it’s cold out there…

Jennifer — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:22:15 -0000

Re: “I don’t want a man that’s going to use the Koran to be sworn in as President instead of the Bible.”

Jennifer — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:37:39 -0000

But how many americans would really agree with these people? I think this represents a very small percentage of americans.

Re: “I don’t want a man that’s going to use the Koran to be sworn in as President instead of the Bible.”

Jennifer — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:37:39 -0000

But how many americans would really agree with these people? I think this represents a very small percentage of americans.

Re: “I don’t want a man that’s going to use the Koran to be sworn in as President instead of the Bible.”

Jennifer — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:23:16 -0000

Well fortunately there are a lot more of us city folk. If we would all jut vote...

Re: “I don’t want a man that’s going to use the Koran to be sworn in as President instead of the Bible.”

Jennifer — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:23:16 -0000

Well fortunately there are a lot more of us city folk. If we would all jut vote...

Re: myhowthingschange

Jennifer — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:28:35 -0000

There are hateful apostates out there who fit the stereotype, who left 20 years ago and can't move on with their lives so they make it their mission to spew hate at the JW's constantly. What JW's don't realize is that isn't true of most people who leave. They are very ignorant of what life is like after you leave, since they aren't allowed to talk to us. One of our relatives doesn't even realize that us former JW's talk to each other. They must think that since they have to avoid "apostates" then even us "apostates" have to avoid each other. They just assume we still believe in the religion even when we explicitly say we don't, and give several logical reasons why we know it is not true. They say things like, "that guy left the truth 10 years ago, so he's REALLY bad". Um, thanks, so you think we're just sorta bad because we only left a year and a half ago? They assume we live and act like JW's still, they don't think we celebrate holidays, or vote, or not think it's crazy when they announce the wedding of an 18 year old, or plan for our kid to go to college, or become friends with "worldly" people or former JW's. They don't comprehend that leaving is a huge process that you go through. That you seek out support, and that us former members seek each other out for that support. They don't get that one thing you wrote 4 years ago isn't going to be exactly what you think today, because in their lives that's how things are. Nothing is fluid, everything is solid. They can't see your grey in their black and white world.

Re: myhowthingschange

Jennifer — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:28:35 -0000

Re: myhowthingschange

Jennifer — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:13:35 -0000

myhowthingschange said, "Perhaps the seeking out of people who don’t know what they are seeking, for support, has represented itself well in the comments… yes marvelously written… and yes it has tainted your character… yes it has been defamed."

Are you saying that I don't know what I'm seeking? In life? On what basis are you making this assumption? Are you saying that I tainted Ryan's character? Really? In what way have I have tainted Ryan?

This accusation is the perfect example of how JW's think that former JW's don't talk to each other, and if they do, then they further corrupt each other. One relative called a support group my Mom joined a "hate group". As if former JW's trying to move on with their lives are now a dangerous threatening group. The baseless stereotypes are frustrating, and can bring out the behavior that they accuse former members of having, even when these people weren't originally angry when they first left.

The quotes from myhowthingschange are truly confusing. It sounds like s/he is arguing on behalf of Ryan by the quotes provided, but then s/he makes a left turn and accuses Ryan of not being a free thinker based on the quotes provided. I have no idea how to interpret this, but those are some great quotes, so thanks myhowthingschange for providing them here. Both of them really apply well to leaving the JW's.

Re: myhowthingschange

Jennifer — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:13:35 -0000

Re: myhowthingschange

Jennifer — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:47:10 -0000

Well, s/he has to attack your character because your other arguments are so air tight they can't logically refute them. It's such a poor course to take, attacking the individual because you don't like what they are saying. I find that this is what most of these "underground" JW's who go around reading info on the web that they technically aren't supposed to read, do when they are trying to argue that they have the true religion. How this proves it I don't understand. All they are doing is trying to make the former member look bad to the general public, as if the general public isn't smart enough to see through an ad hominem argument.

Re: myhowthingschange

Jennifer — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:47:10 -0000

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Jennifer — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:22:15 -0000

You should try to publish this.

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Jennifer — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:22:15 -0000

You should try to publish this.

Re: Digg

Jennifer — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:05:28 -0000

What's Digg?

Re: Digg

Jennifer — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:05:28 -0000

What's Digg?

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:35:30 -0000

How about a class action law suit? We are shunned on a certain level even though we never dissociated formally. Simply leaving prompts a level of shunning by everyone we knew in the religion. I think you are really on to something here. Hope you can find someone to give you legal advice on this.

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:35:30 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:00:11 -0000

But shunning isn't a CHOICE. One witness couple I know would not stop associating with their disfellowshipped son, who lived in another state who they only saw about once every year or two, and they themselves were then publicly reproved for dropping in to visit him while they were in that state for a vacation. How is that a choice? They had already limited their association with their son, avoided him when possible, because the religion not only suggested and heavily promoted that course of action, but threatened punishment if they did not do it. Yet, they wanted to keep up some kind of relationship with their child, and were punished for doing so. It isn't a "conscience matter", it is a punishable sin to have more than a business like relationship with anyone who is DF'd or DA'd, even your own child.

Also, what about the slander that the religion bestows on those that leave? This isn't carefully worded in their literature, they are very explicit about what they think of "apostates". Slandering those that leave contributes to the shunning. What about the unfair judicial committees that strip individuals of their basic civil rights? And there is not much "choice" as to whether to submit or not. If you do not submit to the judicial meeting, you will be expelled anyway and treated as though you committed a grave sin, even if you did nothing at all. Also, just the fact that there is no distinction made in the announcement when the person DA's as opposed to gets DF'd, or any distinction in their treatment from JW's, shows that they consider you a member even if you want to leave. That seems unfair, and illegal, to be subjected to the punishments of their system when you don't belong to their system.

Also, it may not stop current family from shunning anyone, but if the language in the religion was softened, and people weren't threatened with punishment, it could make it much, much easier for people to leave the religion without fear that they will be totally cut off from their family.

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:00:11 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:59:25 -0000

It's not exactly a choice when there is a punishment involved. It is closer to being a threat then. Sure you can have your club, and you can ban anyone you want, but when you shun one member and tell all the other members that they must shun them too or they will be shunned, then you've crossed the line. The choice those members have is either they shun one person, or they will be shunned by many people. Not much of a choice if you ask me.

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:59:25 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:06:33 -0000

I think it's a matter of 'informed consent'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

Many people get baptized not knowing the consequences of what will happen if they someday want to leave, whether they are minors or not. In fact, many people coming out of the org who simply want to walk away, are not fully aware of the consequences of doing so and are taken by surprise when they start getting harassed by the elders. Many people get baptized as minors at the age where their consent is invalid since they are not at a legal age to give consent. Many people stay in the org after the age of consent because they have never been truly informed of other schools of thought outside of it, and therefore have been manipulated from infancy, or childhood, to stay in the org and not be free to even explore information that would make them truly informed.

David, you are right that everyone has the freedom to give consent. That is true, we all consented to joining their club, and we all consented to the rules (at least the ones we knew about). But, we wouldn't feel upset now if we felt like we had given informed consent. It's like a doctor who says you need a surgery, and only gives you enough info, not even all true info, for you to give your consent. Later, after the surgery, you find out you didn't really need it. Your doctor mislead you, or manipulated you, into major surgery that you didn't need. You did give consent, so suing him would be complicated. However, you didn't give informed consent, because the vital information was withheld from you, and the information you did get was not completely correct. And, if you were a minor when you consented to this surgery, and actually not allowed to explore your options, then it makes it all more clear cut that you never gave informed consent.

Unfortunately, trying to pursue a case based on informed consent is next to impossible. Women who are given a c-section, or episiotomy, in childbirth without giving 'informed consent', wont even be able to get a lawyer to speak to them, let alone, go to court and try to fight it. Though informed consent is a legal term, it seems that there are no laws to back it up when it is not obtained.

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:06:33 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:09:26 -0000

David,

Perhaps it's easy for you to play devils advocate when your relationships with your family hasn't changed at all, and to joke about "new age crystals" when you've never had a doctor do anything without your consent, or coerce or manipulate you into giving consent that was not "informed". You seem to be missing my point, and I don't feel like arguing it when you act as though anyone who gives consent without being informed is an idiot. Your probably right anyway, no lawyer would likely even talk about taking on a case such as this because lawyers only take cases they think that they can win, and this case would be very difficult to win, so I guess anything we say is a moot point anyway.

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:09:26 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:09:07 -0000

Jeff,

I don't know what the ideals of lawyers are when they start out, all I know is that I was in a situation were I did not give informed consent, or consent at all, and I even clearly stated "no", yet the actions were done to me regardless in front of several witnesses, and this resulted in a great deal of emotional distress. I am trying to file a claim against the county and wanted to consult with a lawyer. Not one would even talk to me over the phone, or meet with me for an hour of their time that I would pay them an exorbitant fee for, simply because they did not think my case was worth their time, or winnable. I called individual lawyers, I called the state's bar to be referred to a lawyer, and after being questioned each time over the phone by their receptionists, I was told that they could not help me. I am not the only one in this situation, I know several women online who have experienced the same treatment and who can not even get a lawyer to speak with them for an hour, even if they pay them. My cynicism about lawyers isn't a personal attack, it is directed at the larger group of currently practicing lawyers in my state that wont give me the time of day to even help me fill out a form.

David,

I realize the medical analogy was off topic, however, many times I've seen you use totally off topic analogies to further your arguments. I thought it was a good example of how the term "informed consent" works, and I thought the term "informed consent" related to our discussion.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that the Watchtower Society should have taught me about other religions, I simply meant that they should not have gone to great lengths to keep me from learning about them, and things like evolution.

Also, it is not ridiculous that I did not know how I would be treated if I left. I was baptized at only 15 years old. I knew about disfellowshipping at the time, and I related it to committing some grave sin. I'm not too sure whether it was clear to me at the time that just walking away would prompt shunning and harassment, but I really don't think it was. Those things are not really discussed in the books that you go over before baptism, and once people who just left were out of my view I didn't ever know what happened to them or how they were treated.

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:09:07 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:27:03 -0000

Jeff,

Thanks for the advice. You sound like you will do your profession some good :-) I will look into that article you mentioned and see if I contact the lawyers mentioned in it.

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

Jennifer — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:27:03 -0000

Jeff,

Thanks for the advice. You sound like you will do your profession some good :-) I will look into that article you mentioned and see if I contact the lawyers mentioned in it.

Re: New Site Theme

Jennifer — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:28:54 -0000

The font is very small and much harder to read than the old font. I'm not crazy about a lighter font on a darker background, it's hard on the eyes. I also am not crazy about how far to the left the main column of text is, I prefer a center column. But, I do like the look of it better, and the way you organized everything on the right side looks much better and easier to navigate.

Re: New Site Theme

Jennifer — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:28:54 -0000

Re: New Site Theme

Jennifer — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:09:18 -0000

Yes, much easier to read now! How considerate of you :)

Re: New Site Theme

Jennifer — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:09:18 -0000

Yes, much easier to read now! How considerate of you :)

Re: The Obama Bitterness Non-Controversy

Jennifer — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:43:32 -0000

They talked about this on The View today, and the very cognitive dissonant Elisabeth Hasselbeck jumped right in in making a mountain out of a mole hill with this issue. But, the three others, who have mixed political views, were all fighting against her that it wasn't that big of a deal. I hope this is reflective of what most people think. I hope only the die hard brainwashed republicans will think this is a big deal. And I hope that this makes Hillary look like an idiot to her party. Why would she even take issue with this statement? It's so obvious that her only concern is getting elected, she doesn't even seem to care anymore whether we have a democrat in the white house at all at the end of this. I just hope people are smart enough to see through the stupid media. They twist things so much to make them seem so much worse then they are.

Re: The Obama Bitterness Non-Controversy

Jennifer — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:43:32 -0000

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

Jennifer — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:40:28 -0000

From what I've read it seems that the only way to get a witness out of the religion is through a very long and tediously slow process. The process works much much better if the person trying to get others out hasn't already left. There are women and men on the JWD forum that have husbands and wives still in the religion. I would think that would be the easiest person to get out, your own spouse, and if these people can't even do that, it really says a lot about how hard it is to get these people to see it isn't true.

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

Jennifer — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:40:28 -0000

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

Jennifer — Sat, 24 May 2008 00:41:53 -0000

I think Anthony brings up a good point, and I don't think it was his intention to debate atheism versus theism, and his point is being lost as people try to do so. I think the only people you really listen to as far as beliefs go are the people you want to hear. The people who reconfirm what you are already thinking, and know to be true. I find, that when people have a belief in god or a specific religion, it is more of a subjective argument. Trying to convince them that god doesn't exist is like trying to convince them that blue is a better color than red, or that french fries taste better than chocolate. If you already know that red is a better color and that chocolate tastes much better, then you can't be convinced otherwise, because you know these things to be true. What I'm trying to say is, a belief in god is not about logic or reason or proving or disproving things, it is about feeling, intuition, and knowing something to be true. Not that this can't or wont change ever. Sometimes people used to like red and then they start liking blue better, or they used to love chocolate, but then get a hankering for more salty cuisine. I think that Anthony is correct in that people have more influence in reinforcing our beliefs then changing them though. Changing beliefs is a very slow tedious process for most. Even if it happens in 10 minutes time like it did for me, there were years and years leading up to the moment that created small changes in my mind until the scales where tipped so far the other way that it just took a tiny bit more information for everything to click all at once. Sometimes you can catch a person whose scales are almost tipped, and tip them, but that doesn't mean you caused them to leave their religion or lose their belief in god, it just means that they were at a point where it was bound to happen anyway. In the case of the JW's, we would all like them to leave their religion so that they will talk to us again, but, it is pretty impossible to get anyone out unless they are almost their anyway.

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

Jennifer — Sat, 24 May 2008 00:41:53 -0000

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

Jennifer — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:11:36 -0000

I am so madly in love with Obama after watching this video :-)

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

Jennifer — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:11:36 -0000

I am so madly in love with Obama after watching this video :-)

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

Jennifer — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:57:23 -0000

It's like Michael Moore said, that our choices are between "dumb and dumber" for the presidential election. The way I see it, if "dumb" isn't a clear winner, then Fox News will take it upon themselves to proclaim "dumber" the winner. I'm sick of living with "dumber", so I'm voting for "dumb". It will make my life better, and everyone elses lives better, and even if he isn't perfect on the issues, or says something that I personally disagree with, voting for him is for the greater good at this point. Vote for any other guy and your throwing your vote in the garbage, which will harm your own life, your child's life, and my child's life. I can understand having big principles and lines you don't want to cross, but I feel that this election is so critical and there is too much at stake for people to just throw away their votes and put our country in jeopardy of being led by a tyrant for the next eight years.

You know, when you can barely afford your health insurance and even with it you end up paying hundreds of dollars out of pocket a year, and your child faces entering school in a couple years where he'll be one of 40 kids in the class, and you had to give up your house because you couldn't afford it anymore, and your brother-in-law can't even enjoy the fireworks show because his PTSD from his extended stay in Iraq is so bad, and your family can't afford gas or groceries without using the charge card, and your friends can't get married because the country sees them as not equal to everyone else based on their sexual orientation, and the environment is being so desecrated that you have daily anxiety about what kind of world your child is going to grow up in, well then sometimes you just vote for the person who isn't going to make all these things worse. And sometimes you just get the best option in office, and worry about the nuances of their political platform later.

But, that's me, I just have constant dread and anxiety for my child and don't even want to live in this country if Mccain gets elected, so I don't really give a crap if Obama is pandering to the evangelicals right now. Let him, then maybe he'll get more votes, and then he'll get elected, and then my life will suck a little less.

Think of the greater good man.

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

Jennifer — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:57:23 -0000

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

Jennifer — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:21:05 -0000

You did say that you would not vote Obama;

"This is something I absolutely, positively, cannot support."

"I would never vote for McCain, but if you’re going to continue laying the groundwork for a State in which secular free thinkers such as myself will not be welcome, then I cannot support your candidacy either."

I totally support trying to change a stance that you don't agree with. I totally support writing to him and imploring him to reconsider. I just don't support throwing your vote away if he doesn't change his mind, because that puts us all in jeopardy.

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

Jennifer — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:21:05 -0000

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

Jennifer — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:01:21 -0000

Well, in that case, it's all good. You really seemed to be indicating that you weren't going to vote for him, and you didn't clarify that you really were going to in your post. I really hope that all the secularists that are upset by this are not so upset as to not vote for him.

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

Jennifer — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:01:21 -0000

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

Jennifer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:27:48 -0000

Sources?

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

Jennifer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:27:48 -0000

Sources?

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

Jennifer — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:01:37 -0000

Have you read Obama's statement on this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-p... That is what makes me the most uncomfortable, as I don't really understand the laws and bills and all that, but a statement I can understand. To me he seems to be saying, "oh, sorry, but I had to pander to the republicans, but don't worry, I'll be liberal once I'm elected." Yeah right. And also, "hey, if you don't like it, too bad buddy, I'm still better than the other guy and your stuck with me now." I don't like his changing tone. He's right, we are stuck with him, he is still better than the other guy. But it seems he is letting us down. He's flip flopping. He's acting like just another politician, instead of who we thought he was. Oh well, in this messed up two party system we only have two choices, and that is what sucks and why he isn't kept in check. I hope he learns something from the backlash.

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

Jennifer — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:01:37 -0000

Re: Therapy and Meditation

Jennifer — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:37:14 -0000

I've been in therapy for almost three years now. I was told that therapists were like Jean, but I also got one like Paul, which I am glad about. My therapist says her job in a nutshell is to challenge and support me. And boy does she challenge me, but she does also support me. She challenged me right out of the witnesses, and then supported me in the aftermath. It is a strange relationship, but meaningful and incredibly helpful. It's really hard, but I keep going back for more. It has proved to be worth it and has helped me a great deal.

Re: Therapy and Meditation

Jennifer — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:37:14 -0000

Re: Potluck

Jennifer — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:41:12 -0000

"12 and 13 year old kids have sex. That’s a fact of life. Sure, they usually do it with other 12 and 13 year olds, granted, but it doesn’t change the fact that it happens. It’s something our culture doesn’t like to talk about, but it’s been true throughout the history of our species and is still legally accepted in many parts of the world."

So because 12 and 13 year olds have sex with each other, then are you saying that makes it easier to understand why an adult and a 12 or 13 year would have sex with each other?

Re: Potluck

Jennifer — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:41:12 -0000

Re: Potluck

Jennifer — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:19:30 -0000

I can kind of see what you are saying. However, children are born as sexual beings. Pedophilia is more of a seduction than a rape, no matter what the age of the child. That is why it is so confusing and distressing to children who have experienced it, because it is unwanted, yet it feels good.

Furthermore, there is more to reaching sexual maturity than simply being able to have sex. Is a 12 year old female sexually mature? No way. Many 12 year old females are not even menstruating yet. Gestating, birthing and breastfeeding are part of sexuality. Our species has large headed offspring, which is why they are born about three months before they end their "fetal" stage (no other animal's offspring are born at such a helpless, immature stage of development). Therefore, I would argue that evolutionary driven sex occurs more around the age of 16, when the females hips have widened sufficiently to allow a baby to grow to a normal size, and to pass through the pelvis, and after her breasts have fully developed. Also, she is full grown by this age, so her own growth or the baby's growth would not be affected by a pregnancy, all the nutrients could go to the baby. If our species had started coupling off at 12 years old, the infants and the 12 year old mothers would have had a much higher rate of death during pregnancy and childbirth and our species would have suffered. They both may have had growth retardation if they did not have access to vast amounts of nutrients (which they wouldn't if another 12 year old was providing for them), which in turn would affect subsequent pregnancies. Also, a 12 year old would not have had a very high rate of success in breastfeeding her offspring due to both physical and mental immaturity. And a male 12 year old would not have been chosen, even by an older woman, because he would not have been able to hunt, build shelter, or do the things needed to keep his offspring alive. He would not be full grown, so he would want to eat all the food he managed to get.

So, what I'm trying to say is, 16 or 17 is a much more biologically appropriate age to start having sex, and the development of our species reflects that this is true. Also, just because a 12 year old may be a sexual being, and may have experimented with sex with their peers, doesn't mean they are ready to have sex with a truly sexually mature adult. It is the same as having sex with a 10 year old, or a 7 year old. Those children may be sexual beings, they may have sexually experimented with their peers, but no one is ever ready for a sexual relationship where one person has all the power and another has none.

Re: Potluck

Jennifer — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:19:30 -0000

Re: Potluck

Jennifer — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:42:44 -0000

Just a little correction: I said that human babies are the least developed of all animals, but I meant they are the least developed of all primates. They are also comparatively underdeveloped when you look at most animal species, but not all, there are kangaroos after all, and perhaps some others :-)

Re: Potluck

Jennifer — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:42:44 -0000

Re: Potluck

Jennifer — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:32:34 -0000

There probably is not consensus on the age of sexual maturity because it varies culturally. In some areas of the world girls start menstruating at 9 years old, so I suppose by 12 they are sexually mature. But, there is just so much more involved in successful reproduction then the act of sex, that I still think you have to look at all the factors when making this decision. I think we have to look at the age of "optimal" sexual maturity, not whether or not sex might be possible.

Also, I think whenever anyone is under age 18, we have to look at the age discrepancy between the two parties. If a guy in his 30's is having sex with 12 year olds, that weird and creepy no matter how sexually mature she is. If my 18 year old son has sex with a 16 year old, I don't want him to be sent to jail over it because they are peers. So, I think that you can't just factor in sexual maturity, but how much older the other person is and how much power they hold over the younger person.

Re: Potluck

Jennifer — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:32:34 -0000

Re: The Historical Jesus Puzzle – Part 1

Jennifer — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:23:15 -0000

I can't say it really matters to my life whether Jesus existed or not, so I haven't given it the research that you have. I can't tell from what you've wrote here whether he existed or not, as I don't find any of your evidence to be convincing beyond any doubt. I think you raise some interesting points, but for example, I can't really pick out part of one sentence of John and be sure that John didn't write that book of the bible and therefore he didn't ever see Jesus. Maybe that is just the way they wrote back then. Lots of people now talk in the third person, maybe that's how John talked. Who knows.

I think the most interesting thing is that there are many pagan gods with the same story as Jesus. To me that proves that Jesus was nothing special, and perhaps made up. Or perhaps he was a real person and just had made up stories associated with him. I guess I lean more towards scenario number 2, but I'll have to read the other parts of your article.

Re: The Historical Jesus Puzzle - Part 1

Jennifer — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:23:15 -0000

Re: The Story of My Life

Jennifer — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:27:47 -0000

That's funny, I "stumbled upon" this the other day.

Re: The Story of My Life

Jennifer — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:27:47 -0000

That's funny, I "stumbled upon" this the other day.

Re: McCain/Palin

Jennifer — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:08:56 -0000

First of all, I don't like Palin, I think it's an idiotic pick. As if women are so stupid, that since Hilary isn't running, then we'll obviously vote for this woman, just because she's a woman. McCain obviously doesn't think that women have any brains in their pretty little heads.

However, I was a bit taken aback by this sentence of yours: "If he were to die or have a stroke that incapacitated him (very real possibilities) and Mrs. Palin were to become President the most powerful political leader on the planet would be a 44-year-old mother of 5 with the following experience:"

I'm confused as to why you used the abbreviation "Mrs." Maybe it's a picky thing on my part, but when referring to anyone else, you don't use "Mr." or "Mrs." I don't recall ever reading anything here about "Mr. Obama" or "Mr. McCain" or "Mrs. Clinton". Why is she "Mrs. Palin", and why only in this sentence? I also was unsure why you said "a 44-year-old mother of 5". What does being 44, or being a mother of 5 have to do with her competency in running the country? No one ever says, "Obama, a father of 2", so why do we have to say "Palin, a mother of 5"? Is the fact that she is a "Mrs.", that she is "44" and that she is a "mother of 5" make her somehow less qualified to lead the country? Your list was quite compelling without the inclusion of these remarks, which, if I didn't know you better I may just call sexist. I think it is fine that you included autobiographical information, but you seem to be including it in a place and in a way that is supposed to negatively sway our opinion of her, and the information isn't inherently negative.

But that sentence aside, I haven't liked anything I've heard about her politics, and your post just added to the list of things I don't like about her. I will be scared if McCain gets elected that she would actually become president someday.

Re: McCain/Palin

Jennifer — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:08:56 -0000

Re: McCain/Palin

Jennifer — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:43:07 -0000

It's okay to use "Mrs." in general (unless your referring to me, then you better use Ms. :-) ), it was the context that caused me to raise an eyebrow, and the fact that it was only used in that one sentence, and paired with the other two issues I raised, and also that you have never referred to any other candidate that way (as far as I can recall). It wasn't JUST the Mrs. thing, it was the entire sentence, that was just part of it.

Re: McCain/Palin

Jennifer — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:43:07 -0000

Re: Fear

Jennifer — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:26:12 -0000

Wow, thanks for totally freaking me out Ryan.

Re: Fear

Jennifer — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:26:12 -0000

Wow, thanks for totally freaking me out Ryan.

Re: The Palin/Couric Interview

Jennifer — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:43:36 -0000

Did you see this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/report... I wonder if she'll be asked to leave the ticket.

Re: The Palin/Couric Interview

Jennifer — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:43:36 -0000

Did you see this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/report... I wonder if she'll be asked to leave the ticket.

Re: Reminder: Gig Tonight!

Jennifer — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:40:01 -0000

Don't feel so bad Melanie, I couldn't go either. Though we tried, we couldn't get a sitter for Owen. Sorry Ryan, I'll have to catch you next time.

Re: Reminder: Gig Tonight!

Jennifer — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:40:01 -0000

Don't feel so bad Melanie, I couldn't go either. Though we tried, we couldn't get a sitter for Owen. Sorry Ryan, I'll have to catch you next time.

Re: Are You Registered To Vote?

Jennifer — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:43:30 -0000

Yeah, that site didn't work for me either. Just took all my info and I ended up at an FAQ page. I still don't know if I'm registered or not.

Re: Are You Registered To Vote?

Jennifer — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:43:30 -0000

Yeah, that site didn't work for me either. Just took all my info and I ended up at an FAQ page. I still don't know if I'm registered or not.

Re: Helium Lunatics

Jennifer — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:18:41 -0000

My eyes have opened, and now I can make the right choose.

Re: Helium Lunatics

Jennifer — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:18:41 -0000

My eyes have opened, and now I can make the right choose.

Re: MacBook

Jennifer — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:53:58 -0000

Our computers names:

imac special edition: Lemon

ibook lime special edition: Mac the Knife

imac flat screen: Edith

ipod second generation: Mini Mac

Our "twin" intel ibooks: Anikan and Annika

Re: MacBook

Jennifer — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:53:58 -0000

Our computers names:

imac special edition: Lemon

ibook lime special edition: Mac the Knife

imac flat screen: Edith

ipod second generation: Mini Mac

Our "twin" intel ibooks: Anikan and Annika

Re: Science Fair

Jennifer — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:10:53 -0000

Check out their statement of belief: http://www.tccsa.tc/believe.html

Re: Science Fair

Jennifer — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:10:53 -0000

Check out their statement of belief: http://www.tccsa.tc/believe.html

Re: Certified Apostate

Jennifer — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:05:45 -0000

Someone sounds a little paranoid. Is it that unbelievable that a person could know what they are talking about without an organization telling them what to say? I guess it is to a JW.

Re: Certified Apostate

Jennifer — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:05:45 -0000

Someone sounds a little paranoid. Is it that unbelievable that a person could know what they are talking about without an organization telling them what to say? I guess it is to a JW.

Re: Dawkins

Jennifer — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:26:53 -0000

I thought it was good and interesting overall, but I did raise an eyebrow at a few of the things he said. Like when he said that people get upset about killing a fetus, but not a cow, when the cow can actually feel pain. Aside from the fact that the cow isn't going to carry on our genetic material and keep the human race alive, fetuses do feel pain. They are actually highly advanced at a very young age of gestation. He talked about how large our brains have evolved to be, yet seemingly failed to see that this would make smarter more advanced fetuses. It sounded like he was spewing political propaganda and not true science in that instance. I also thought his points about adoption being a subversion was just not totally accurate. He said that animals don't adopt unless they can be convinced that the offspring is their own. That just isn't true, many animals routinely adopt babies that are not their own, some even adopt babies of another species. Animals like elephants and gorillas live in a cummune of sorts, and babysit other's offspring, and if the mother dies the baby is adopted by other females. The strong maternal instinct often overrides evolutionary goals, and this is true for many kinds of animals, not just humans. In those instances he seemed to trying to bend science to fit into his agenda, and not allowing it to speak for itself. Other then that though, I found his speech highly interesting, and I loved the way he handled the questions at the end. He seems like a very smart guy. I wished that they had preselected the questioners though, instead of allowing just the first people who could get to the microphone. Some of those people were really annoying.

Re: Dawkins

Jennifer — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:13:29 -0000

Chadly,

What, so I'm not allowed to question Dawkins ;-) Hmm, that seems to remind me of something...

It has been long thought in our society that newborns can't feel pain, don't have emotions, and thus wont be affected by mistreatment or suffering infringed on them. Well, that is a load of crap, and the fact that it is not a well established scientific fact by now is astounding. We know that a newborns nervous system is well developed enough to feel pain, because they respond with a different cry as well as other forms of distress when presented with painful stimuli. So the nervous system develops sometime in utero. Fetuses also move away from painful stimuli, and they even have been observed crying in utero. Of course, there is a point where a fetus is a conglomeration of cells, and there is a point where it is a fully formed fetus that responds to it's environment, and I realize there is a gray area there as far how quickly they get from point A to point B, but we do know that at some point a fetus can feel pain, because we know that a newborn can feel pain, and they feel it profoundly - not in an underdeveloped nervous system sort of way. Dawkins didn't clarify the age of gestation he was speaking about, and perhaps that was his error, however, I don't understand how a scientist can claim to quantify a beings pain.

Re: Dawkins

Jennifer — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:26:43 -0000

You may be right, now that I think about it I think he said "embryo" and not "fetus". Then he must have been referring to stem cell research and not abortion, which to me is an odd comparison, so I jumped to thinking "fetus" and not hearing "embryo". I'd be interested to see his talk again online too to clarify what his point was there.

Re: Dawkins

Jennifer — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:26:53 -0000

Re: Administrivia

Jennifer — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:35:49 -0000

Yay, no more incessant tweeting! Also, you might want to update to our new site on your blogroll :-)

Re: Dawkins

Jennifer — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:13:29 -0000

Re: Dawkins

Jennifer — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:26:43 -0000

Re: Administrivia

Jennifer — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:35:49 -0000

Yay, no more incessant tweeting! Also, you might want to update to our new site on your blogroll :-)

Re: Dawkins

Jennifer — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:31:41 -0000

Blastocysts aren't ever even aborted, as you wouldn't even get a positive pregnancy test if you were hosting a blastocyst. I totally agree that they don't feel pain or resemble anything human yet. He didn't make it entirely clear (at least to me - and maybe I just wasn't paying close enough attention) that he was talking about a bastocyst. He said embryo, not blastocyst. As for making "hazy claims" his saying that animals don't adopt orphaned infants of their kind unless they are tricked into doing so seems sort of hazy after just watching a couple documentaries on animals.

Re: Dawkins

Jennifer — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:35:18 -0000

Yeah, I'm not a fan, so I wasn't familiar with the fact that this was an established recurring argument and I was supposed to fill in the blanks and just know what he was talking about. Makes sense now that the blanks have been sufficiently filling in.

Re: Dawkins

Jennifer — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 04:31:41 -0000

Re: Dawkins

Jennifer — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 04:35:18 -0000

Re: Journaling, Blogging, Gardening, Hiking, Biking, Geocaching….

Jennifer — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:37:25 -0000

I think it is great that you are discovering nature. I also think it's pretty sad that you never saw seeds sprout. Owen's developmental movement therapist told us to plant seeds to use as a metaphor for him. To show him that things grow and change (we are trying to coax him into potty training). Anyway, I just thought of that when you said you never saw seeds sprout before.

Re: Journaling, Blogging, Gardening, Hiking, Biking, Geocaching….

Jennifer — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:37:25 -0000

Re: Why Do American’s Fail To Understand Science?

Jennifer — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:45:24 -0000

I think this a failure of our countries education system. Science isn't even taught until years after a child enters school, and even then, complex ideas like evolution are skimmed over. For kids whose parents are fundamentalists, they learn about why evolution is wrong years before they are ever exposed to it in school. For kids whose parents are not, they don't learn enough about evolution to make it a solid believable concept in their minds and they could be easily swayed form it later in life.

Re: Why Do Americans Fail To Understand Science?

Jennifer — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:45:24 -0000