|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 25, 2013 16:07:31 GMT -5
If you are not talking about titillation, then saying "sex sells" is the wrong phrase to use. Marketing companies use the phrase "sex sells" all the time and are always referring to titillation. That explains the bad reaction you got from your post. It has little to do with titillation. It is reaching out to what is a basic biological drive. Buy this new car and you too can win the woman of your dreams. No titillation. As Vance Packard (perhaps in The Hidden Persuaders) pointed out - you advertise the convertible with the blond in the passenger seat and the customer walks out with the sedan and his wife as the passenger. But the hook was set, their attention was grabbed, with the idea. Again, not titillation. (just to be sure - TITILLATE transitive verb - to excite pleasurably, arouse by stimulation.) Given that 4 children, on average, die every day in the US from abuse it is difficult to see sexual abuse as "..most heinous and damaging...". Then you don't know the statistics of CSA in the US. The incidence of CSA is FAR higher than child death by car accidents. I know -- you'll question my source. That's okay -- you can surely find a website that will contradict my statement. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 25, 2013 16:10:40 GMT -5
I agree with this. It is absolutely imperative to report immediately before showering or doing anything that would disturb the evidence of an assault! However, in cases of fondling where there is no 'evidence' left it becomes far more difficult to prove. It then becomes a he said, she said situation. In young children they may not know what even happened, just that it didn't feel good to them. It may have scared them and they may have been intimidated to not tell because someone they love would get hurt. That's why it's so important for parents to have an open communication with their children so they feel comfortable telling them anything that is troubling them. We know though, that isn't even a sure thing. It's not always black and white. Therefore it is important that people investigate the story. I know you believe that too, I'm just stating the obvious. When abuse happens it hurts when people act as though they don't believe you. It makes you feel so alone and helpless. You already feel violated and 'bad' and so the person handling the questioning, which is also very important, must be very careful not to make things worse. What is truly sad is that parents who abuse their young children will usually use such an argument with them as to make them feel ashamed for the incident and to justify future CSA. It just makes you wonder how any human being can be so callous and indifferent about such a heinous crime against a child and especially their own flesh and blood. Such narcissistic parents obviously view their children more as a personal possession they can use at will rather than as a person with feelings and human emotions?  Not always, but sometimes the abuse comes from a parent that was abused also. I remember a group we ran called 'for men who batter their wives' and most of the men had fathers that abused their mothers. Most of them would say that when they were a child watching their father they swore that when they grew up they would never do that to their wives. But guess what? They did and mostly because when frustrated that was the role model they reverted to and the one way they knew how to show their displeasure. Afterwards it was always a repentant and appalled individual who found it hard to believe they had done it. I know it is a learned behavior and for some it's hard to stop the continuation of abuse. Then of course there are those who are sociopaths that really don't care about anyone other than themselves and their gratification. However, I believe many abusers have been abused themselves. I haven't looked up the stats on that, you I could be wrong. It just seemed that way to me though when I was working in forensic services. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 25, 2013 16:34:30 GMT -5
I can't believe my eyes in what is written on this thread! Some of the smartest people in the world, by their own aspirations, pushing for verifiable "data"/facts! This is something that there are only 2 people involved in at a time...the victim and the perpetrator and we all should understand that the perp will not willingly tell on himself/herself to their criminal sexual behaviours. So then all we really have is the victim, who is probably the only source of verifiable facts.......Sheesh....how ridiculous can you get! Some criminals, when confronted, do admit to their crimes. While there may only be two present at the time of the crime, many criminals are convicted when brought to trial. But in any case, there is a danger in not investigating the facts. There is the well documented case of a woman accusing a man of rape which resulted in him spending 11 years in prison. While it would be wonderful is the victim's word could be accepted without question, the risk for error is too great. The woman's memory was simply wrong. Questioning has nothing to do with believing or feeling for the victims. While it would be politically correct to say "Oh yes, we believe your story without question" that does not benefit anyone if someone is convicted in error. Worse if the real criminal goes free. You seem not to understand that it is possible to neither believe nor disbelieve what a person says -- but still act appropriately anyway. In fact -- that is the most appropriate way to approach these kinds of situations. That is why these cases need to be turned over to the authorities -- because WE are not competent to determine the determine such guilt without bias. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 16:34:42 GMT -5
Read the account of the meeting between [removed], BB, the victim(of a non illegal questionable sexual talk) and you will get the gist of what I am talking about. The victim told all the sexual questions that [removed] flatly denied that he has EVER talked that way to anyone. He then, unexplicably, says, "You forgot that I asked you about your 'orgasm' ". There was a stunned silence in the room as [removed] had just admitted to what he had denied. Bary Barkley, an intelligent man, SHOULD have said, "that's it, dude, you are outta here." Instead he sat there like a stone and said nothing...as if [removed] had said nothing at all. [removed] said something like "I don't know why I said that. I read that word somewhere and I don't know what it means...I don't even know if I pronounced it right"....[removed] is a VERY intelligent person, mind you. The victim said, "that is right. You DID ask about orgasm and, yes, you pronounced it just right." This is what I am talking about an environment of abuse and cover up. Know what -- I believe it. One worker lies boldface, and the other swears to it -- even though he was witness to nothing. Are such workers just totally shameless, or do they think the friends are so completely stupid that they don't know the worker is lying?[/b] I'm afraid it's simply a bit of both. As for most of the friends, whatever a worker says is right! The possibility of a worker telling a bare-faced lie simply does not exist, even when the hearing friend has first hand knowledge of the actual truth of a matter. The hearer will question themselves rather than the worker. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 25, 2013 16:42:52 GMT -5
Know what -- I believe it. One worker lies boldface, and the other swears to it -- even though he was witness to nothing. Are such workers just totally shameless, or do they think the friends are so completely stupid that they don't know the worker is lying?[/b] I'm afraid it's simply a bit of both. As for most of the friends, whatever a worker says is right! The possibility of a worker telling a bare-faced lie simply does not exist, even when the hearing friend has first hand knowledge of the actual truth of a matter. The hearer will question themselves rather than the worker. [/quote] You are so right. I cannot understand what happens to a person's mind that he become so blinded to what is solid empirical in his face evidence to the contrary. The frightening thing is that this is exactly what happens in the minds of terrorists -- their mind is disassociated from their own humanity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 16:43:57 GMT -5
Read the account of the meeting between [removed], BB, the victim(of a non illegal questionable sexual talk) and you will get the gist of what I am talking about. The victim told all the sexual questions that [removed] flatly denied that he has EVER talked that way to anyone. He then, unexplicably, says, "You forgot that I asked you about your 'orgasm' ". There was a stunned silence in the room as [removed] had just admitted to what he had denied. Bary Barkley, an intelligent man, SHOULD have said, "that's it, dude, you are outta here." Instead he sat there like a stone and said nothing...as if [removed] had said nothing at all. [removed] said something like "I don't know why I said that. I read that word somewhere and I don't know what it means...I don't even know if I pronounced it right"....[removed] is a VERY intelligent person, mind you. The victim said, "that is right. You DID ask about orgasm and, yes, you pronounced it just right." This is what I am talking about an environment of abuse and cover up. Know what -- I believe it. One worker lies boldface, and the other swears to it -- even though he was witness to nothing. Are such workers just totally shameless, or do they think the friends are so completely stupid that they don't know the worker is lying? That's an interesting thing about the friends. They aren't stupid, but they don't know when a worker is lying either. I've seen some of the smartest, most skeptical, perceptive people I know just swallow everything they are told by the workers. It's like they have a switch they turn on and off. On for most of the time, off for the workers. It's a most fascinating thing to observe. No wonder the workers get away with half-truths, evasions, diversions and occasional outright lies......it's too easy for them. It traces back to the "only way" and "God's only true servants". Once you accept that, you accept everything you are told whether it makes a shred of sense or not. I had a recent conversation with someone who indicated he totally believes that only the friends and workers are "honest" and everyone else is well down the scale. That was his first lie, but one that he seemed to completely believe until I challenged him on the honesty of non-professing people I know and he backed down. He didn't force me to talk about the dishonesty of insiders or workers......he's a smart guy and probably knew that was coming next! The point is, people will swallow anything once they believe a false premise. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 16:55:52 GMT -5
[/b] I'm afraid it's simply a bit of both. As for most of the friends, whatever a worker says is right! The possibility of a worker telling a bare-faced lie simply does not exist, even when the hearing friend has first hand knowledge of the actual truth of a matter. The hearer will question themselves rather than the worker. [/quote] You are so right. I cannot understand what happens to a person's mind that he become so blinded to what is solid empirical in his face evidence to the contrary. The frightening thing is that this is exactly what happens in the minds of terrorists -- their mind is disassociated from their own humanity.[/quote] It is simply down to constant indoctrination and then as a participant there is the addition of self-indoctrination. You leave your brains at the door. In other aspects of life the brain may function normally, but when it comes to matters of faith and worship, the mind becomes disarmed as it automatically shifts to professing mode. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 25, 2013 20:09:54 GMT -5
I can't believe my eyes in what is written on this thread! Some of the smartest people in the world, by their own aspirations, pushing for verifiable "data"/facts! This is something that there are only 2 people involved in at a time...the victim and the perpetrator and we all should understand that the perp will not willingly tell on himself/herself to their criminal sexual behaviours. So then all we really have is the victim, who is probably the only source of verifiable facts.......Sheesh....how ridiculous can you get! ~ Perhaps that's why some people never tell their story, for fear of being victimized all over again by some of the same people they meet with on Sunday Morning? It's never easy to come forward and tell your story and then to be accused of lying only adds more discomfort to the original pain of betrayal by someone you once trusted to have your best interest at heart.  Working as a facilitator in the past in my church and dealing with a number of hurting people in group discussions, I know how hard it is for some to come forward and share their painful life experience, which stays with them years later as unresolved business. My heart goes out to all the victims of such horrible crimes against one's person, especially CSA. It makes you wonder just how cold and calculating some people can be as not to realize the harm of their actions ~ and later to cover up and deny it ever occurred when confronted.  Faune, I understand what you're saying....many many years ago now, I was a rape victim myself...I did not go to the authorities knowing full well as a young medical professional just exactly what the police in those days often did with a rape victim and their efforts for justice. The police themselves often marred the scenary with their own sexist remarks and ignorance. So a young lady didn't stand a chance in hell's gardens of seeing any justice done, so why take a chance on muddying her own reputation with trying to talk to a policeman(few female policemen in those days) and having their terror become a sick joke of something like "Yea, I bet that was rape....likely was consentual and the only reason they're hollering for justice is because she's been caught out now to be the town's lowest low life." Just bearing it privately and as it was mentioned, time helps heal or at least helps one to pass on away from the pain and terror and panic....though one is always just a bit suspicious of every male that gets too close too soon before one gets to know who he is and what his goal is! |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 25, 2013 22:58:26 GMT -5
Ram shared...
Ram ~ How well I remember that transition you describe above from my professing days within the fold. It's amazing how much of my experience was "self-indoctrination" to fit the mold of that the workers created for us. My tendency to rationalize things I should have questioned still bothers me today, which made me wonder if I left my brains at the door on occasion. However, that's one reason I believe in researching things out more thoroughly today in areas I don't understand, so as I don't get fooled by appearances and accepting things without a thorough evaluation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2013 2:50:37 GMT -5
Ram shared...
Ram ~ How well I remember that transition you describe above from my professing days within the fold. It's amazing how much of my experience was "self-indoctrination" to fit the mold of that the workers created for us. My tendency to rationalize things I should have questioned still bothers me today, which made me wonder if I left my brains at the door on occasion. However, that's one reason I believe in researching things out more thoroughly today in areas I don't understand, so as I don't get fooled by appearances and accepting things without a thorough evaluation. Faune, we DID leave our brains at the door. We did participate in self indoctrination. We did participate in self spiritual abuse. However, as in the old 'Oo song: "We Won't Get Fooled Again!" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2013 6:26:21 GMT -5
Just remember, if Irvine doesn't do the trick - try CSA.
|
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Jul 26, 2013 8:24:35 GMT -5
Just remember, if Irvine doesn't do the trick - try CSA. Glad to see that finally people with courage are willing to expose the ugliness in the fellowship instead of covering it up. The first step toward repentance is recognizing the problems. That step is being taken. There are more steps to be taken if the system is ever to be purified. I should think if you support the system you'd be pleased to see that things are headed in a positive direction. But then...there will be scoffers. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 26, 2013 8:33:51 GMT -5
Snow ~ You were a young teen when it occurred and no doubt did what most kids do even today because of public shame associated with such an act of violence. However, [removed] was not only a worker, but an overseer, who had power over his staff and took advantage of his place and authority, much like a boss within a workplace. The sister worker's employment and place in the work stood in the balance as well as her reputation among the friends, if a charge was brought against an overseer. Also, it appears he was sure to stress that point with his victim to intimidate her and keep her from reporting him. This type of behavior is typical of people lacking in a sense of morality among us. :P Accusing someone of rape and then questioning their morality seems a bit redundant. I think everyone understands that what Snow did was no different than what the majority of people in that situation do. Of course, she was a young adult and has the right to make the decision to report or not. At issue in some cases is the fact that the parents are deciding for a young child whether they should report because or their, certainly not the child's, reputation. The point is to educate people to report crimes and try to remove the stigma from this type of crime. I think it is a well known fact that some people lie. The fact that LW could not come up with a coherent story should not come as a shock to anyone. Much of what was happening was illegal and the remedy is to report the incidents to the authorities. Being threatened with eternal damnation is certainly a winning card if it is played to someone who believed that the person who committed the rape still has that kind of pull with their god, While not politically correct to comment (it seems), the story is that a person was sexually attacked and then threatened by the attacker to not report it under a number of threats. The victim chose not to report the crime at that time. Years later the victim decides to report the crime but gathering the facts for a successful trial is difficult. This does not deny the courage it took to come forward but it does point out the need for victims to go to the authorities at the time. No matter when the crime is reported there will be questions but they are certainly better answered with DNA samples and photos of bruise marks than a story recalled years later from memory without the supporting physical evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 26, 2013 8:48:08 GMT -5
Then you don't know the statistics of CSA in the US. The incidence of CSA is FAR higher than child death by car accidents. I know -- you'll question my source. That's okay -- you can surely find a website that will contradict my statement. I really don't need a website to question your statement. Given that the number of children killed each year in automobile accidents is less than 3,000 I am sure you are right. I could also say that the incidence of CSA is far greater than child death by suffocating on inhaled balloons. The incidence of CSA is far greater than the number of children who are struck by lightening. What exactly is your point? This does not change the fact that sexual abuse accounts for only 10% of all reported child abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 26, 2013 8:49:53 GMT -5
However, as in the old 'Oo song: "We Won't Get Fooled Again!"How many times can people sing this and still believe it? |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 26, 2013 9:05:21 GMT -5
Ram shared...
Ram ~ How well I remember that transition you describe above from my professing days within the fold. It's amazing how much of my experience was "self-indoctrination" to fit the mold of that the workers created for us. My tendency to rationalize things I should have questioned still bothers me today, which made me wonder if I left my brains at the door on occasion. However, that's one reason I believe in researching things out more thoroughly today in areas I don't understand, so as I don't get fooled by appearances and accepting things without a thorough evaluation. Not only leaving our minds at the door before opening and closing it and self indoctrinating ourselves in being what we perceive what those in power want us to be like...we suffered improper scriptural definitions, etc to become our own interpretations as well. When I read John 1, I am totally amazed at what stupidity runs rampant in the 2x2's to not understand what the beloved apostle of Jesus is saying there.....and of course those who want to defend their continued ineptness will jump to the Johanna Comma for defense when it has little to do with John 1......I tend to think I should follow what John has supposedly left on record for us in regards to what and who Jesus was and is, since he is the only apostle who did not suffer untimely death and plus he was the Bridegroom's best friend, even in his writings of REvelations! If he isn't to be believed, then we might as well chuck the whole bible, IMO! |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 26, 2013 9:11:09 GMT -5
Then you don't know the statistics of CSA in the US. The incidence of CSA is FAR higher than child death by car accidents. I know -- you'll question my source. That's okay -- you can surely find a website that will contradict my statement. I really don't need a website to question your statement. Given that the number of children killed each year in automobile accidents is less than 3,000 I am sure you are right. I could also say that the incidence of CSA is far greater than child death by suffocating on inhaled balloons. The incidence of CSA is far greater than the number of children who are struck by lightening. What exactly is your point? This does not change the fact that sexual abuse accounts for only 10% of all reported child abuse. There are a couple of problems with what you are saying; First; The subject is CSA. This is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Why cloud the issue with other problems. Keep them separate. Why try to minimize the problem of CSA with other problems/abuse. Call it "minor" because there are other problems? Deal with each one separately, and don't try to minimize either. You can always try to minimize a problem by attempting to point to a greater problem, which you can usually find. Second; You keep repeating that abuse is a far greater problem. Then you throw out things like broken bones. While this happens, it is a very minor part of the abuse problem. Your percentage statistics are very general. In other words, a kid that did have a rib broken, is thrown in the same category as the kid that was whipped with the belt, or perhaps slapped as a correction. This happened to me all the time when I was a kid. There was no long term damaging affect on me from this. I guess in your statistics, I would be a part of your 90 percent category. So would many of my friends. None of us have any long term affects from it, except for all positive ones. I don't in the least consider myself abused as a kid - even though according to your statistics, I would be thrown into this category. So, you ask if broken ribs have a long term lasting affect? Most likely. But what percentage of your statistics of abuse children fall in the category of long term - lasting affects? I would say that 100 percent of all CSA incidences have long term lasting affects. I could be wrong. I have nothing to back it up. Bottom line, lets not cloud or minimize one issue with the other. They both need to be dealt with for what they are. I know many times they will overlap. it is then, one case at a time, that then they can be dealt with together - but even then, not minimizing either one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2013 9:50:14 GMT -5
The issue of overlap is an interesting one, and certainly not an invalid discussion. There is a very interesting strategy out there for high level abuse that is recommended by experts which I recall was applied in the area of crime in NYC a couple of decades ago. What they did in NYC to combat major crime was that they started to heavily enforce minor crime. They even went so far as to start issuing tickets for jaywalking. The theory was that if you enforced all crimes, including the smallest ones, you created a new environment such that major crimes would drop in frequency. Now whether coincidental or not, major crimes did indeed drop off drastically in NYC after that. Similarly with the target of reducing CSA. The idea is to target even the smallest abuses in the family, school, church, etc. such as minor put-downs. No tolerance for name calling, swatting someone lightly in retaliation, unkind teasing, insults, etc. As you become successful in ridding your group of those low level abuses, then the high level abuses such as CSA, rape, life threatening violence will drop precipitously as well along with it. It's an interesting idea and one that has a lot of merit imo. Here is a short article on the idea called "Catch it Low to Prevent it High" www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol-1005-goldstein.html |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 26, 2013 10:23:06 GMT -5
The issue of overlap is an interesting one, and certainly not an invalid discussion. There is a very interesting strategy out there for high level abuse that is recommended by experts which I recall was applied in the area of crime in NYC a couple of decades ago. What they did in NYC to combat major crime was that they started to heavily enforce minor crime. They even went so far as to start issuing tickets for jaywalking. The theory was that if you enforced all crimes, including the smallest ones, you created a new environment such that major crimes would drop in frequency. Now whether coincidental or not, major crimes did indeed drop off drastically in NYC after that. Similarly with the target of reducing CSA. The idea is to target even the smallest abuses in the family, school, church, etc. such as minor put-downs. No tolerance for name calling, swatting someone lightly in retaliation, unkind teasing, insults, etc. As you become successful in ridding your group of those low level abuses, then the high level abuses such as CSA, rape, life threatening violence will drop precipitously as well along with it. It's an interesting idea and one that has a lot of merit imo. Here is a short article on the idea called "Catch it Low to Prevent it High" www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol-1005-goldstein.htmlThis has a lot of merit in many different and un-related fields. We have done the same in regards to safety. We have taken many steps in order to eliminate all accidents. Even small minor ones like a cut finger, or sawdust in ones eye. But the results have been much fewer deaths and major injuries. Injuries that have resulted in "days away from work" have been reduced dramatically. This makes sense where ever it is applied. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2013 10:33:53 GMT -5
The issue of overlap is an interesting one, and certainly not an invalid discussion. There is a very interesting strategy out there for high level abuse that is recommended by experts which I recall was applied in the area of crime in NYC a couple of decades ago. What they did in NYC to combat major crime was that they started to heavily enforce minor crime. They even went so far as to start issuing tickets for jaywalking. The theory was that if you enforced all crimes, including the smallest ones, you created a new environment such that major crimes would drop in frequency. Now whether coincidental or not, major crimes did indeed drop off drastically in NYC after that. Similarly with the target of reducing CSA. The idea is to target even the smallest abuses in the family, school, church, etc. such as minor put-downs. No tolerance for name calling, swatting someone lightly in retaliation, unkind teasing, insults, etc. As you become successful in ridding your group of those low level abuses, then the high level abuses such as CSA, rape, life threatening violence will drop precipitously as well along with it. It's an interesting idea and one that has a lot of merit imo. Here is a short article on the idea called "Catch it Low to Prevent it High" www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol-1005-goldstein.htmlThis has a lot of merit in many different and un-related fields. We have done the same in regards to safety. We have taken many steps in order to eliminate all accidents. Even small minor ones like a cut finger, or sawdust in ones eye. But the results have been much fewer deaths and major injuries. Injuries that have resulted in "days away from work" have been reduced dramatically. This makes sense where ever it is applied. Exactly, this is going on regarding physical safety in our work environment as well. I think reason why this is successful is because the Safety authorities are attempting to instill a "culture of safety" on the work site. By bringing to the forefront the small safety things, everyone starts to think more about safety in all aspects and will quickly learn to identify all risky practices, particularly the big ones.....so it becomes part of the work "culture". So it should work similarly successfully with crime, abuse, even driving and recreational safety. |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 26, 2013 10:42:18 GMT -5
Ram shared...
Ram ~ How well I remember that transition you describe above from my professing days within the fold. It's amazing how much of my experience was "self-indoctrination" to fit the mold of what the workers created for us. My tendency to rationalize things I should have questioned still bothers me today, which made me wonder if I left my brains at the door on occasion? However, that's one reason I believe in researching things out more thoroughly today in areas I don't understand, so as I don't get fooled by appearances and accepting things without a thorough evaluation. Not only leaving our minds at the door before opening and closing it and self indoctrinating ourselves in being what we perceive what those in power want us to be like...we suffered improper scriptural definitions, etc to become our own interpretations as well. When I read John 1, I am totally amazed at what stupidity runs rampant in the 2x2's to not understand what the beloved apostle of Jesus is saying there.....and of course those who want to defend their continued ineptness will jump to the Johanna Comma for defense when it has little to do with John 1......I tend to think I should follow what John has supposedly left on record for us in regards to what and who Jesus was and is, since he is the only apostle who did not suffer untimely death and plus he was the Bridegroom's best friend, even in his writings of REvelations! If he isn't to be believed, then we might as well chuck the whole bible, IMO! ~ I feel we all get a little "conditioning" in what we believe to be true, regardless of the church we attend? However, some groups carry things a little farther in their requirements and conditions for membership than others in pertaining to external appearances, IMO? However, its the content of what constitutes the gospel message regarding Jesus that is really important and gets changed when legalism and traditions become the norm and change the real focus on Jesus and His desire for humanity? On this Board I have seen some professing folks who are definitely more open to others and not so exclusive by the content of their postings. They also come across as be kind and graceful towards others. I guess I saw so much of the other side of the coin growing up that my own impressions may be tainted? I'm glad some changes have come since my departure in 1995 and I hope they progressively increase for those who remain within the faith, including a better understanding of the real gospel message Jesus came to present to the world. Here's the best answer I could find to convey what I mean by "the real gospel message" that is of primary importance that we understand in order to put our trust in Jesus ~ and not some religious system within the world. www.gotquestions.org/true-gospel.html |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 26, 2013 11:14:14 GMT -5
Here's that article relating to the true gospel message Jesus came to proclaim to clarify my previous statement regarding the same:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2013 11:17:34 GMT -5
However, as in the old 'Oo song: "We Won't Get Fooled Again!"How many times can people sing this and still believe it? The best person to ask is Roger Daltrey. I believe he is still singing it, though I don't know if he still believes it? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 26, 2013 12:33:02 GMT -5
There are a couple of problems with what you are saying;[/quote]Only a couple?!? It was a side discussion regarding the fact that there is hyperfocus on sexual abuse while there is hypofocus on other types of abuse. Abuse does not exist in a vacuum. Pointing out additional problems does not minimize CSA but puts it into perspective. Nope. Slapped with the open hand, without a lasting mark being left, would not be considered physical abuse. If an adult hit you with a belt then, yes, you were physically abused according to the guidelines. If you were slapped with an open hand you would not be part of the 90%. There you go. You weren't abused and the outcome was positive. I hope you are not implying that if there are not long term effects that abuse, of any kind, is ok. Perhaps this would be a good exercise. I am hesitant to post any peer reviewed research on the subject because it seems that many would rather just fly by the seat of their pants/skirts than actually consider the research done on abuse and its effects on the people involved. Being that as it may, here is a report from the Australian Government, with references included, that may shed some light on the subject - The long-term effects of child sexual abuse.I know there are some (many?) who will say that they can do a google search and find research to support either side. I hear those claims often but do not often see the result of any of those searches that support their claims. Saying that "100 percent of all CSA incidences have long term lasting affects" is interesting to post but is about as meaningful as saying that "All people can fly if they would just throw themselves at the ground and miss" (thanks to Douglas Adams). And the fact that it is not correct is misleading. Sounds good. But doesn't hyperfocusing on one minimize the other? |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 26, 2013 14:27:40 GMT -5
Then you don't know the statistics of CSA in the US. The incidence of CSA is FAR higher than child death by car accidents. I know -- you'll question my source. That's okay -- you can surely find a website that will contradict my statement. I really don't need a website to question your statement. Given that the number of children killed each year in automobile accidents is less than 3,000 I am sure you are right. I could also say that the incidence of CSA is far greater than child death by suffocating on inhaled balloons. The incidence of CSA is far greater than the number of children who are struck by lightening. What exactly is your point? This does not change the fact that sexual abuse accounts for only 10% of all reported child abuse. My point was -- you would go looking for arguments to refute my statement.  |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 26, 2013 14:32:41 GMT -5
I really don't need a website to question your statement. Given that the number of children killed each year in automobile accidents is less than 3,000 I am sure you are right. I could also say that the incidence of CSA is far greater than child death by suffocating on inhaled balloons. The incidence of CSA is far greater than the number of children who are struck by lightening. What exactly is your point? This does not change the fact that sexual abuse accounts for only 10% of all reported child abuse. There are a couple of problems with what you are saying; First; The subject is CSA. This is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Why cloud the issue with other problems. Keep them separate. Why try to minimize the problem of CSA with other problems/abuse. Call it "minor" because there are other problems? Deal with each one separately, and don't try to minimize either. You can always try to minimize a problem by attempting to point to a greater problem, which you can usually find. Second; You keep repeating that abuse is a far greater problem. Then you throw out things like broken bones. While this happens, it is a very minor part of the abuse problem. Your percentage statistics are very general. In other words, a kid that did have a rib broken, is thrown in the same category as the kid that was whipped with the belt, or perhaps slapped as a correction. This happened to me all the time when I was a kid. There was no long term damaging affect on me from this. I guess in your statistics, I would be a part of your 90 percent category. So would many of my friends. None of us have any long term affects from it, except for all positive ones. I don't in the least consider myself abused as a kid - even though according to your statistics, I would be thrown into this category. So, you ask if broken ribs have a long term lasting affect? Most likely. But what percentage of your statistics of abuse children fall in the category of long term - lasting affects? I would say that 100 percent of all CSA incidences have long term lasting affects. I could be wrong. I have nothing to back it up. Bottom line, lets not cloud or minimize one issue with the other. They both need to be dealt with for what they are. I know many times they will overlap. it is then, one case at a time, that then they can be dealt with together - but even then, not minimizing either one. He needs a good course in statistics. |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 26, 2013 14:35:58 GMT -5
There are a couple of problems with what you are saying; Only a couple?!? It was a side discussion regarding the fact that there is hyperfocus on sexual abuse while there is hypofocus on other types of abuse. Abuse does not exist in a vacuum. Pointing out additional problems does not minimize CSA but puts it into perspective. Calling it "minor" does.Nope. Slapped with the open hand, without a lasting mark being left, would not be considered physical abuse. If an adult hit you with a belt then, yes, you were physically abused according to the guidelines. If you were slapped with an open hand you would not be part of the 90%. I was both slapped and belted. Belted much more often than slapped, so I guess I'm part of the 90% There you go. You weren't abused and the outcome was positive. oh, but I was according to your statistics. I was also belted.I hope you are not implying that if there are not long term effects that abuse, of any kind, is ok. Hope no longer. I was not implying that.Perhaps this would be a good exercise. I am hesitant to post any peer reviewed research on the subject because it seems that many would rather just fly by the seat of their pants/skirts than actually consider the research done on abuse and its effects on the people involved. Being that as it may, here is a report from the Australian Government, with references included, that may shed some light on the subject - The long-term effects of child sexual abuse.I know there are some (many?) who will say that they can do a google search and find research to support either side. I hear those claims often but do not often see the result of any of those searches that support their claims. Saying that "100 percent of all CSA incidences have long term lasting affects" is interesting to post but is about as meaningful as saying that "All people can fly if they would just throw themselves at the ground and miss" (thanks to Douglas Adams). This is a very interesting comparison. I'm not sure I would have put these two together.And the fact that it is not correct is misleading. As I stated, I could be wrong, but common sense would tell me that CSA has a very high percentage of lasting affects.Sounds good. But doesn't hyperfocusing on one minimize the other? No, but calling one "minor" does[/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 26, 2013 14:50:26 GMT -5
Snow ~ You were a young teen when it occurred and no doubt did what most kids do even today because of public shame associated with such an act of violence. However, [removed] was not only a worker, but an overseer, who had power over his staff and took advantage of his place and authority, much like a boss within a workplace. The sister worker's employment and place in the work stood in the balance as well as her reputation among the friends, if a charge was brought against an overseer. Also, it appears he was sure to stress that point with his victim to intimidate her and keep her from reporting him. This type of behavior is typical of people lacking in a sense of morality among us. Accusing someone of rape and then questioning their morality seems a bit redundant. I think everyone understands that what Snow did was no different than what the majority of people in that situation do. Of course, she was a young adult and has the right to make the decision to report or not. At issue in some cases is the fact that the parents are deciding for a young child whether they should report because or their, certainly not the child's, reputation. The point is to educate people to report crimes and try to remove the stigma from this type of crime. I think it is a well known fact that some people lie. The fact that LW could not come up with a coherent story should not come as a shock to anyone. Much of what was happening was illegal and the remedy is to report the incidents to the authorities. Being threatened with eternal damnation is certainly a winning card if it is played to someone who believed that the person who committed the rape still has that kind of pull with their god, While not politically correct to comment (it seems), the story is that a person was sexually attacked and then threatened by the attacker to not report it under a number of threats. The victim chose not to report the crime at that time. Years later the victim decides to report the crime but gathering the facts for a successful trial is difficult. This does not deny the courage it took to come forward but it does point out the need for victims to go to the authorities at the time. No matter when the crime is reported there will be questions but they are certainly better answered with DNA samples and photos of bruise marks than a story recalled years later from memory without the supporting physical evidence. ~ I agree with your post above and understand your point of view on this matter. You are definitely as appalled as the rest of us regarding such a criminal offense going unpunished due to silence in the past. However, when a person is in a state of shock and horror over sexual assault, you don't always think clearly ~ especially when the person doing the attacking is threatening and intimidating to you? Back in earlier days when Snow was a young teen, things were viewed so differently and cover-up was the matter of the day. Today there is more awareness of this horrible crime and people are coming forward after years of silence and telling their story to help others. I'm glad to see this new trend in our society regarding transparency; however, it has been long in coming within society. People are "coming out of the closet" about all sorts of things today, which were kept veiled in the darkness before. That's also a good thing! I praise those courageous ones among us who are brave enough to tell their story to help others avoid the same pitfalls and to get validation at last. Speaking up is so important in getting help and the sooner the better! Perhaps when the perps see that their actions are being exposed in the light, they will think twice before violating another innocent person? Also, it would be great to see them finally getting the criminal attention they deserve from the proper authorities as people become more aware of CSA and sexual assault and harrassment? |
|
Working as a facilitator in the past in my church and dealing with a number of hurting people in group discussions, I know how hard it is for some to come forward and share their painful life experience, which stays with them years later as unresolved business. My heart goes out to all the victims of such horrible crimes against one's person, especially CSA. It makes you wonder just how cold and calculating some people can be as not to realize the harm of their actions ~ and later to cover up and deny it ever occurred when confronted. 
