|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2020 1:20:51 GMT
Because your insight into human nature is so accurate? No, it's called basic research, maybe one day try it before you spread unsubstantiated claims Was your point to show that Satanic abuse occurs less often than abuse in the Catholic Church? None of those links mention any such thing. It's called retarded kids who are not able to read and simply listing internet links they imagine address their concerns. That's not "research." That's you-need-a-note-from-your-parents-giving-you-permission-to-use-the-internet or go away. Those pages by the way admit having the purpose (bias) of calming uproar or "moral panic." That's because "science" and "research" are not really given access to enough data to do anything else. There is no central reporting agency. When the police are suspected of participating in satanism, they aren't likely to be the "trusted" people to whom victims turn. The data is therefore necessarily "anecdotal." Of course all data is anecdotal at some point.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 17, 2020 1:23:02 GMT
It is? Okay, doc. I won't try to change your mind on that. It wouldn't accomplish anything anyway. Did you not make the claim that there is a hell and that is where they will be going? Did you not make the claim that heaven and hell are bogus nonsense?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2020 1:33:20 GMT
You mean she didn't ask when the slugs return from Capistrano? Sorry. She asked one of her typically aloof, frivolous and asinine questions which you also evaded yourself. Why? Your answer "there are plenty" was devoid of any detail. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2020 1:38:04 GMT
Because your insight into human nature is so accurate? His is better than yours. You mean you think so. I don't agree.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2020 1:38:55 GMT
Your answer "there are plenty" was devoid of any detail. Why? I'm sure if you take the time to google cases of Catholic Priests who have been convicted of diddling kids, you will find plenty of results. Why didn't you? I asked you first.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 17, 2020 3:15:55 GMT
Actually the statue is perfectly real, although clearly Maya has no clue as to the symbology (tres surprise), the statue is (I think) intended to showcase Satan as the light bringer which is pretty common in Satanic circles, but what it really was about was a physical demonstration of the hypocrisy of freedom of religion, they had to go through a lengthy process to be able to erect it because freedom of religion did not extend to the freedom for satanists to erect statues. Just how many Satanic circles do you think are out there? I get that there are some numbnuts who use Satanism tropes to test religious freedom, but the believers think these people really are worshiping Satan The hoaxers selling this idea are reaping a profit off of them. There’s more “Satanic worship” inside of Christianity than outside of it. If there were not, the hucksters could not get the faithful to behave like demons (see QAnon supporters, Westboro Baptists, etc). Hmm I dont know, yeah 100% "Satanism" is normally the athiestic humanist "religion" and these guys specifically were that, which of course makes more sense as this is really a political statue rather than a religious one, and I was paraphrasing what I remembered at the time around the point being that satanists have lots of statues to erect, the real point was highlighting the hypocrisy with one statue. There are a pretty good number of actual worshippers around though, I was active among some in NZ at one time in my life and there are plenty more.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 17, 2020 3:19:33 GMT
No, it's called basic research, maybe one day try it before you spread unsubstantiated claims Was your point to show that Satanic abuse occurs less often than abuse in the Catholic Church? None of those links mention any such thing. It's called retarded kids who are not able to read and simply listing internet links they imagine address their concerns. That's not "research." That's you-need-a-note-from-your-parents-giving-you-permission-to-use-the-internet or go away. Those pages by the way admit having the purpose (bias) of calming uproar or "moral panic." That's because "science" and "research" are not really given access to enough data to do anything else. There is no central reporting agency. When the police are suspected of participating in satanism, they aren't likely to be the "trusted" people to whom victims turn. The data is therefore necessarily "anecdotal." Of course all data is anecdotal at some point. Did you read any of those? just go and read the abstract and the conclusion that is probably enough heavy lifting for you, the point is that multiple far reaching investigations turned up exactly ZERO cases of ritual satanic abuse, this is evidence of my claim that your satanic abuse that you talk about: its absolute codswallop.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 17, 2020 4:38:27 GMT
It’s too on the nose to be from anyone but hoaxer, because it’s a conspiracy theorist wet dream. You guys want this Satanist crap to be real, so there’s an industry pandering to your fantasy. I did a thread on this statue a few years ago. It is not a hoax. The Satanic Temple Unveils a Massive Statue of Baphomet in DetroitDK if Paul still has me on block, but if he does that's okay. The rest of you can still see him making a fool of himself. Paul makes a fool of himself with the same frequency that you make rational and intelligent posts.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 17, 2020 5:39:25 GMT
Paul makes a fool of himself with the same frequency that you make rational and intelligent posts. Were you into goth and/or heavy metal? Yeah still a big metal fan, not so much goth.
How come?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2020 7:06:04 GMT
Sometimes the world just doesn't go our way, does it?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2020 7:39:21 GMT
Was your point to show that Satanic abuse occurs less often than abuse in the Catholic Church? None of those links mention any such thing. It's called retarded kids who are not able to read and simply listing internet links they imagine address their concerns. That's not "research." That's you-need-a-note-from-your-parents-giving-you-permission-to-use-the-internet or go away. Those pages by the way admit having the purpose (bias) of calming uproar or "moral panic." That's because "science" and "research" are not really given access to enough data to do anything else. There is no central reporting agency. When the police are suspected of participating in satanism, they aren't likely to be the "trusted" people to whom victims turn. The data is therefore necessarily "anecdotal." Of course all data is anecdotal at some point. Did you read any of those? just go and read the abstract and the conclusion that is probably enough heavy lifting for you, the point is that multiple far reaching investigations turned up exactly ZERO cases of ritual satanic abuse, this is evidence of my claim that your satanic abuse that you talk about: its absolute codswallop. Did you read my reply? I noticed that there is no central reporting agency. Some are based on police reports, some on people seeking mental health professionals, and some on press or whatever. If you don't get all the reports how can you dismiss all of them? Answer: You can't. Also I did read those links and they did not exactly claim there were "zero" actual cases. That's not what I meant by putting things in your own words. You aren't supposed to change what any study says. You're supposed to show you understand what the studies say. They found excuses to dismiss cases based on lack of access to proof. Why would "scientists" do that? They told you. To calm the uproar. Also notice I set "organization" off in quotation marks. That's because the public is not likely apprised of the actual one. And there probably is more abuse with no meaningful connection to any organization including, topical here, the Catholic Church.
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Nov 17, 2020 8:04:49 GMT
That is terrible, and I don't know why Utah Courts would, even for one second, think it is okay because it might fall under some ridiculous freedom of religion law. That is sick. Would she be able to take the case to the supreme court? Still, there are lots of wacky religious sects out there, and they take many forms, not just that of bogus Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 17, 2020 8:07:11 GMT
Did you read any of those? just go and read the abstract and the conclusion that is probably enough heavy lifting for you, the point is that multiple far reaching investigations turned up exactly ZERO cases of ritual satanic abuse, this is evidence of my claim that your satanic abuse that you talk about: its absolute codswallop. Did you read my reply? I noticed that there is no central reporting agency. Some are based on police reports, some on people seeking mental health professionals, and some on press or whatever. If you don't get all the reports how can you dismiss all of them? Answer: You can't. Also I did read those links and they did not exactly claim there were "zero" actual cases. That's not what I meant by putting things in your own words. You aren't supposed to change what any study says. You're supposed to show you understand what the studies say. They found excuses to dismiss cases based on lack of access to proof. Why would "scientists" do that? They told you. To calm the uproar. Also notice I set "organization" off in quotation marks. That's because the public is not likely apprised of the actual one. And there probably is more abuse with no meaningful connection to any organization including, topical here, the Catholic Church. Wild conjecture on your part, I showed evidence that no satanic abuse had been uncovered and the best you can do is say probably because you have made up a shadowy conspiracy? When God was handing out personalities, did you think he asked about haircuts and request thick and wavy?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 17, 2020 8:25:16 GMT
Yeah still a big metal fan, not so much goth.
How come?
Because being counter-Christian is a part of that counter-culture. If God is Order, then Satan is Chaos. I’m not condemning, but making an observation. Alternative and new religions flourish in America that has a strong Christian-based culture, yet allows (or should allow) religious liberty for all religions. As such groups of people who feel pressure to conform may seek out the polar opposite as a nonconformist release. And Eastern religions even offer mystical systems that incorporate God/Satan, Good/Bad as a single entity or idea. The goth and punk rock cultures are easy access for many alienated youth who seek the darker spiritual side. And as both great good and bad can be perpetuated in the name of God, so can in it be done in the name Satan. I’m not ascribing this to any spiritual being or power, because it is the cultural consciousness of a society that drives the good or bad they do. Yeah certainly being in the metal scene gave me access to satanism, and yeah both appeal to dissafected youths, of which I once was one, now i am a dissafected elder
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2020 12:25:27 GMT
Did you read my reply? I noticed that there is no central reporting agency. Some are based on police reports, some on people seeking mental health professionals, and some on press or whatever. If you don't get all the reports how can you dismiss all of them? Answer: You can't. Also I did read those links and they did not exactly claim there were "zero" actual cases. That's not what I meant by putting things in your own words. You aren't supposed to change what any study says. You're supposed to show you understand what the studies say. They found excuses to dismiss cases based on lack of access to proof. Why would "scientists" do that? They told you. To calm the uproar. Also notice I set "organization" off in quotation marks. That's because the public is not likely apprised of the actual one. And there probably is more abuse with no meaningful connection to any organization including, topical here, the Catholic Church. Wild conjecture on your part, I showed evidence that no satanic abuse had been uncovered and the best you can do is say probably because you have made up a shadowy conspiracy? When God was handing out personalities, did you think he asked about haircuts and request thick and wavy? What you "showed" was that you are incompetent to discuss the topic. Did any of your links list even one case? No. They just listed the judgement calls of uncoordinated researchers who were too distant from any cases to read them properly.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 17, 2020 13:36:37 GMT
Someone spent a lot of time and money fabricating this.
The statue of Baphomet is a bronze sculpture commissioned by The Satanic Temple depicting the goat-headed, winged symbol of the occult. First unveiled in Detroit in 2015, the statue stands 8.5 feet (2.6 m) tall and features a prominent pentagram as well as two smiling youths gazing up at the seated central figure. Public display of the piece, or the mere suggestion of its display, has been a key element of Satanic Temple actions advocating the separation of church and state, more specifically to balance Ten Commandment monuments in several state capitols. Time noted that "the group does not 'promote a belief in a personal Satan.' By their logic, Satan is an abstraction, ... 'a literary figure, not a deity — he stands for rationality, for skepticism, for speaking truth to power, even at great personal cost.' Time also commented on the statue's unveiling, writing "Call it Libertarian Gothic, maybe — some darker permutation of Ayn Rand's crusade for free will. One witnesses in The Satanic Temple militia a certain knee-jerk reaction to encroachments upon personal liberties, especially when those encroachments come with a crucifix in hand. The Baphomet statue is the Satanic Temple’s defiant retort du jour. [Wiki]
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 17, 2020 13:51:00 GMT
Wild conjecture on your part, I showed evidence that no satanic abuse had been uncovered and the best you can do is say probably because you have made up a shadowy conspiracy? What you "showed" was that you are incompetent to discuss the topic. Did any of your links list even one case? No. They just listed the judgement calls of uncoordinated researchers who were too distant from any cases to read them properly.
So-called "Satanic Child Abuse" was mainly the product of a moral panic of the 1980's and 1990's propagated by certain psychotherapists, social workers, Christian fundamentalists and law enforcement officials and bears resemblances to the witch hunts of the last few centuries, although fortunately this time there were no burnings. While there have been a few cases of nutters abusing children with Satanic trappings, evidence of wider conspiracies have always proved non-existent while the inflammatory effect of claims fanned by 'hypno-regression' have been widely criticised. The fantastic web of devil worshippers who breed babies for sacrifice exists only in the minds of disturbed young women, and occasionally men. An investigation into such allegations by the British government for instance produced over two hundred reports, of which only three were substantiated and proved to be examples of pseudo-satanic, in which sexual abuse was the actual motivation and the rituals were incidental. In the United States, major allegations of Satanic ritual abuse occurred in the Kern County child abuse cases, McMartin preschool trial and the West Memphis 3, which garnered world-wide media coverage. It was eventually determined that no satanic abuse ever took place in these cases, due to false testimony and police misconduct. Ultimately it was not access to proof that was the issue. It was the lack of any. A book I can personally recommend in connection with this scare is Speak of the Devil: Tales of Satanic Abuse in Contemporary England, (1998) which is indeed an instance of well respected, co-ordinated research. www.amazon.co.uk/Speak-Devil-Satanic-Contemporary-England/dp/0521629349/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=satanic+child+abuse&qid=1605620708&s=books&sr=1-6 for which the blurb is: "Allegations of satanic child abuse became widespread in North America in the 1980s. Shortly afterwards, there were similar reports in Britain of sexual abuse, torture and murder, associated with worship of the Devil. Professor Jean La Fontaine, a senior British anthropologist, conducted a two year research project into these allegations, which found that they were without foundation. Her detailed analysis of a number of specific cases, and an extensive review of the literature, revealed no evidence of devil-worship. She concludes that the child witnesses come to believe that they are describing what actually happened to them, but that adults are manipulating the accusations. She draws parallels with classic instances of witchcraft accusations and witch-hunts in sixteenth and seventeenth-century Europe, and shows that beneath the hysteria there is a social movement, which is fostered by a climate of social and economic insecurity. Persuasively argued, this is an authoritative and scholarly account of an emotive issue." As others have pointed out this is all in stark contrast to the child abuse scandal which is still plaguing the church, featuring connivance and a conspiracy of silence which in some cases reached, and still reaches, to the top.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2020 14:01:18 GMT
So-called "Satanic Child Abuse" was mainly the product of a moral panic of the 1980's and 1990's propagated by certain psychotherapists, social workers, Christian fundamentalists and law enforcement officials and bears resemblances to the witch hunts of the last few centuries, although fortunately this time there were no burnings. While there have been a few cases of nutters abusing children with Satanic trappings, evidence of wider conspiracies have always proved non-existent. An investigation into such allegations by the British government for instance produced over two hundred reports, of which only three were substantiated and proved to be examples of pseudo-satanic, in which sexual abuse was the actual motivation and the rituals were incidental. In the United States, major allegations of Satanic ritual abuse occurred in the Kern County child abuse cases, McMartin preschool trial and the West Memphis 3, which garnered world-wide media coverage. It was eventually determined that no satanic abuse ever took place in these cases, due to false testimony and police misconduct. Ultimately it was not access to proof that was the issue. It was the lack of any. A book I can personally recommend in connection with this scare is Speak of the Devil: Tales of Satanic Abuse in Contemporary Englandwww.amazon.co.uk/Speak-Devil-Satanic-Contemporary-England/dp/0521629349/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=satanic+child+abuse&qid=1605620708&s=books&sr=1-6 for which the blurb is: "Allegations of satanic child abuse became widespread in North America in the 1980s. Shortly afterwards, there were similar reports in Britain of sexual abuse, torture and murder, associated with worship of the Devil. Professor Jean La Fontaine, a senior British anthropologist, conducted a two year research project into these allegations, which found that they were without foundation. Her detailed analysis of a number of specific cases, and an extensive review of the literature, revealed no evidence of devil-worship. She concludes that the child witnesses come to believe that they are describing what actually happened to them, but that adults are manipulating the accusations. She draws parallels with classic instances of witchcraft accusations and witch-hunts in sixteenth and seventeenth-century Europe, and shows that beneath the hysteria there is a social movement, which is fostered by a climate of social and economic insecurity. Persuasively argued, this is an authoritative and scholarly account of an emotive issue." As others have pointed out this is all in stark contrast to the child abuse scandal which is still plaguing the church, featuring connivance and a conspiracy of silence which in some cases reached to the top. I wonder whether your sources had the same talent for missing the point as you have? "Her detailed analysis of a number of specific cases" means what number exactly?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 17, 2020 14:18:43 GMT
So-called "Satanic Child Abuse" was mainly the product of a moral panic of the 1980's and 1990's propagated by certain psychotherapists, social workers, Christian fundamentalists and law enforcement officials and bears resemblances to the witch hunts of the last few centuries, although fortunately this time there were no burnings. While there have been a few cases of nutters abusing children with Satanic trappings, evidence of wider conspiracies have always proved non-existent. An investigation into such allegations by the British government for instance produced over two hundred reports, of which only three were substantiated and proved to be examples of pseudo-satanic, in which sexual abuse was the actual motivation and the rituals were incidental. In the United States, major allegations of Satanic ritual abuse occurred in the Kern County child abuse cases, McMartin preschool trial and the West Memphis 3, which garnered world-wide media coverage. It was eventually determined that no satanic abuse ever took place in these cases, due to false testimony and police misconduct. Ultimately it was not access to proof that was the issue. It was the lack of any. A book I can personally recommend in connection with this scare is Speak of the Devil: Tales of Satanic Abuse in Contemporary Englandwww.amazon.co.uk/Speak-Devil-Satanic-Contemporary-England/dp/0521629349/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=satanic+child+abuse&qid=1605620708&s=books&sr=1-6 for which the blurb is: "Allegations of satanic child abuse became widespread in North America in the 1980s. Shortly afterwards, there were similar reports in Britain of sexual abuse, torture and murder, associated with worship of the Devil. Professor Jean La Fontaine, a senior British anthropologist, conducted a two year research project into these allegations, which found that they were without foundation. Her detailed analysis of a number of specific cases, and an extensive review of the literature, revealed no evidence of devil-worship. She concludes that the child witnesses come to believe that they are describing what actually happened to them, but that adults are manipulating the accusations. She draws parallels with classic instances of witchcraft accusations and witch-hunts in sixteenth and seventeenth-century Europe, and shows that beneath the hysteria there is a social movement, which is fostered by a climate of social and economic insecurity. Persuasively argued, this is an authoritative and scholarly account of an emotive issue." As others have pointed out this is all in stark contrast to the child abuse scandal which is still plaguing the church, featuring connivance and a conspiracy of silence which in some cases reached to the top. I wonder whether your sources had the same talent for missing the point as you have? "Her detailed analysis of a number of specific cases" means what number exactly? As far as I remember she looked at as many cases which had been reported as she could discover and, critically, their outcomes. She had full and legitimate access to case records nationally. Her research involved interviewing and collating evidence from the key players in the myth; both those who promoted it and those who debunked it. For anyone who is not a self-appointed expert, pages from this book explaining her methodology and range of research can be found here: books.google.co.uk/books/about/Speak_of_the_Devil.html?id=JBxfvDeQdmoC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false I mention this title specifically as it is fine antidote to the 'survivor memoirs' and more credulous account of the phenomenon, many of which have been critically lacerated by professionals (EG Sinason's Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse)
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2020 14:27:04 GMT
I wonder whether your sources had the same talent for missing the point as you have? "Her detailed analysis of a number of specific cases" means what number exactly? As far as I remember she looked at as many cases which had been reported as she could discover and, critically, their outcomes. For anyone who is not a self-appointed expert, pages from this book explaining her methodology and range of research can be found here:books.google.co.uk/books/about/Speak_of_the_Devil.html?id=JBxfvDeQdmoC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false I mention this title specifically as it is fine antidote to the 'survivor memoirs' and more credulous account of the phenomenon, many of which have been critically lacerated by professionals (EG Sinason's Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse) Yet apparently not here. So what purpose do you serve? Time after time I am struck by the simplicity of your viewpoint. You seem to be aware that there was a flurry of complaints about "satanic" activity or at least your sources seem to be aware. How you dismiss them with a few somewhat questionable examples you cannot possibly approach close enough to judge? That's my methodology. It should be yours.
|
|