Rocky

Dennis Prager hosts political talk.

It's about church history and contemporary conduct. It also relates directly to Wierwille's sense of entitlement and inability of the cult to recognize the ramifications of its practice in the lives of victims. I did not cite any politicians or suggest any need for legislation. While politics has to do with people, and this is about people, it's most definitely NOT about suggesting public policy remedies to a most obvious problem. Also, we know that Wierwille's first successor was confronted in court, with not necessarily fulfilling or completely satisfying outcomes for victims of sexual assault in the cult. But thanks, Raf, for defining (sort of) a boundary for the discussion.

Rachael Denhollander was the first woman to publicly accuse former USA Gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar of sexual abuse. As she worked to find justice for herself and the doctor’s other victims, Denhollander began to turn a critical eye on a community that she depended on dearly for support ― her church. Denhollander, an evangelical Christian, saw that Biblical teachings about grace and repentance were being weaponized against victims, pressuring them into offering an easy forgiveness to their abusers. At the same time, churches lacked accountability structures that treated victims with compassion and respect. It soon became clear to her that when it comes to properly caring for survivors of sexual abuse, the church has a long way to go ― and experts HuffPost spoke to agree. Denhollander opened up about her disappointment with the American evangelical church in an interview Wednesday with Christianity Today’s Morgan Lee. “Church is one of the least safe places to acknowledge abuse because the way it is counseled is, more often than not, damaging to the victim,” said Denhollander, who now works as a lawyer in Kentucky. “There is an abhorrent lack of knowledge for the damage and devastation that sexual assault brings. It is with deep regret that I say the church is one of the worst places to go for help.” (continued) As far as I'm concerned, Ms Denhollander is a righteous warrior. Her insight obviously applies to what took place during Wierwille's reign of error (and terror).

What mattered was that Mike got the point. He apologized. If that's the end of it, I'll be satisfied.

Got it. Thanks.

You are such a troll. Just yesterday you claimed to recognize the need to get a life. The highlighted sentence in the quote above further underscores your acknowledged inability to communicate. Unless you can motivate people to be interested in your words, you are nothing but a troll.

You are such a troll. Just yesterday you claimed to recognize the need to get a life. The highlighted sentence in the quote above further underscores your acknowledged inability to communicate. Unless you can motivate people to be interested in your words, you are nothing but a troll.

THIS statement reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of the process of communication. For you to acknowledge failing to communicate (i.e. "... you merely don't understand"), and blame it on ANYONE other than yourself, is reprehensible. You are not a worthy opponent in this debate. And that's a fair inference based directly on your own words.

No, you won't. Not only is your admission (that you have failed to communicate anything here) significant, but it also strongly suggests you knowingly troll here.

That's an admission that you are satisfied with your failure to communicate. Failing to communicate is, by definition, not getting the intended listener/reader to understand the message you said/wrote as you meant it.

Blah blah blah... I am glad you're realizing you need a life.

That's bull$hit, Mike. You don't even come close to proving ANYthing, not even two tiny items. Everyone else: if you let Mike have the last word, he might then stop.

"I'm seriously re-considering what it is I'm doing here. I think I may have broke So_crates merrygoround. I think similar things are happening with other posters. THAT is not my intention. I thought that BY NOW, after a couple of months of posting, that the shock value of my message would have worn off a little. It seems it is not. "Is there any way I can discuss these things, even answer questions, without provoking such negative emotions?" Mike... you are widely perceived as being overtly disingenuous and toying with others here. So, NO there isn't any longer a way that you can post without provoking so much.

No.

We can HOPE!

John posted an update on Facebook a few hours ago. He included some specifics about his blood counts. His attitude is still very positive even though he acknowledges that his doctors tell him he's dying. Anyone wanting more info can check him out on FB.

Dude, you're pulling a Goebbels on your hoped for audience of "pro-PFLAP" readers. Tell the big lie often enough and you hope people will believe it. In fact, you're proving nothing.

Of course you know, it's called projecting. He doesn't know what goes on in the mind of his readers. "... humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting." Go away?

Yeah, you troll here.

Oh really? THAT's delusional. This lends credence to my observation that you're not here to prove anything.

You've not even started proving anything but that you're a Wierwille acolyte.

Pure Evil model is a construct solely of the mind of Mike. Nothing more, nothing less.

I posit that Mike's function here is similar to that of a Russian bot. Not really to argue his alleged thesis but rather to undermine the entire purpose of GSC by way of distracting, not quite fully coherent propaganda so that lurkers get a sense of cognitive dissonance about the primary message of the website.

Because you did not make an argument but rather just a narcissistic pronouncement, this message is just more quasi-intellectual bull$hit. Really Socrates is right.

Apparently, I still wasn't clear... or you just can't or won't see my point. NO, you didn't prove even one tiny point. I could see that YOU were claiming what you said you were claiming. That doesn't mean I believe your claim, or acknowledge its veracity. Even IF Dictor was trying to claim, in an occult fashion, that he WAS proclaiming something that was direct insight from the Creator of heaven and earth I believe it was nothing more than a narcissistic proclamation. My view fits entirely within what Twinky explained about who gets the glory. Sorry, I'm done taking your (quasi-intellectual bull$hit for) bait.