harmony wrote:Pahoran wrote:Martha's sole basis for making the accusation was a set of "recovered memories." In other words, she had no inkling that her father had ever done such a thing until she convinced herself of it, with someone else's help. Do you think such "memories" are reliable? Do you realise that, after the hysteria of the 1980's and 1990's, practically nobody relies upon them any more?
Which is one reason for the "alleged". I'm beginning to wonder if you suffer from the same reading deficient as Daniel does.
What "reading deficient" is that?
And did you mean to say "deficiency?"
harmony wrote:Yes, child abuse happens. So do bogus accusations.
Just because there are bogus accusations doesn't mean child abuse doesn't happen.
Aaargh!
I never said that "child abuse doesn't happen." I rather explicitly said that it
does. Are you even reading what I write?
Child abuse happens. So do bogus accusations. And
Martha's accusations have every appearance of being bogus.
harmony wrote:Wolf redux. The sheep are dead, even if the villagers don't listen.
Harmony, you are repeating that story as if it means that we should always respond to "wolf" stories even from someone with a track record as a prankster.
It does not.
It means that people who habitually tell lies have
no right to expect to be believed when they finally get around to telling the truth.
harmony wrote:I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that people who tell incredible stories, and some of those stories can be shown to be false, have no right to expect others to believe the stories that can't be proven -- or even supported -- one way or another.
Don't make me bring up Joseph Smith, lying from the pulpit, Pahoran. And multiple other examples of our leaders lying.
Irrelevant and off-topic.
harmony wrote:Incredible stories happen every day. Just because they involve bad things and people we trust doesn't mean they don't happen.
And
non-credible stories are
told every day. People with good sense do not believe them.
harmony wrote:You have no evidence that my head is "buried." I have examined Martha's allegations. I do not find them credible. She claimed that her father molested her in the same tiny bedroom where her sister was asleep on the other bunk.
1. She claimed he molested her while her mother had taken her sister to the doctor.
She claimed that he molested her on
multiple occasions over a three-year period, usually at night.
While she was asleep.
And so was her sister.
harmony wrote:2. Joseph claimed Moroni visited him while his brother lay sleeping in the same room.
Apples and oranges; unless you want to claim that HWN was a supernatural being with supernatural powers.
Do you?
harmony wrote:Then why are you even posting? That is the only question under discussion.
I'm a member of this board, Pahoran. I post when and where I please.
Of course you do.
But you are tilting at windmills here, Harmony.
Nobody is denying that child abuse happens. We are denying that the
accusation of child abuse is somehow equivalent to
proof.Because it is not.
harmony wrote:I'm saying that, after looking at her allegations, how clearly implausible they are,...
That's what people say about Joseph too, Pahoran. Yet you accept everything he ever said or did without question. Why do you not apply the same lack of skeptism there?
Apples and oranges. These are two entirely different types of stories.
And Joseph had witnesses to many of the key events. Martha does not.
harmony wrote: their connection with the whole "recovered memory" fiasco, and the many other clearly false statements she makes, there is simply no good reason to believe her.
Don't make me list all the allegations against Joseph.
No-one can "make" you do such a thing, just as no-one can
stop you from doing it, even though it has
no relevance to the subject at hand.harmony wrote:No, I dismiss them because they are (1) incredible on their face, (2) unsupported wherever they could be supported, (3) based upon junk science, and (4) told in connection with other tales that are clearly false.
Joseph again.
I take that as an admission that Martha's allegations cannot stand on their own merits.
And I agree with you.
harmony wrote:He wasn't an apostle, and he was excommunicated. There was actual evidence in that case. There isn't in this.
Close enough. And until the evidence came in,
there was simply an allegation. It's like that in every case... until the evidence comes in, there is simply an allegation.
And the burden of proof remains with the accuser.
harmony wrote:So it's okay to sully his memory with baseless accusations?
You don't know they're baseless. You just assume they are, because it suits your agenda.
I have examined her claims in detail. Have you? You seem to be arguing that because someone somewhere molested a child, then
every accusation of child abuse
must be true.
Well, it happens that yesterday, somewhere, someone robbed a bank. So, if I accuse you of robbing a bank, is that accusation necessarily true?
You tell us that you have seen the reality of child abuse, and the harm it causes. I understand; truly I do. Because I have seen it too.
I have
also seen the reality of false accusations, and the harm
they cause. I have seen
both sides of the equation.
And what I come down to is this: if there is reason to validly suspect that a child even
might be in danger, then we at all times act to protect the child. But if we are looking at allegations made long after the event, against someone who is in no position to harm anyone now, then we can afford to take the time to weigh up the allegations and decide on their merits.
And as far as Martha's allegations go, they are
without merit.
And it's really a slam dunk.
Now, since you have tried to make your case by appealing to "parallels," I shall do the same. When the Salem witchcraft trials were going on, a number of prominent New Englanders, including several senior clergymen, wrote articles and letters to the effect that there were serious problems with the allegations and the way the court was handling the evidence. They received a storm of criticism, and many of them were subsequently forced to recant their views. Evidently to question any aspect of evidence against an accused witch was to sympathise with witchcraft, and put oneself in league with Satan.
This is the ethos of the witch-hunt: an accusation is as good as proof.
Take care that you do not fall into the same trap.
Regards,
Pahoran