Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Vigile last won the day on January 29 2018

Vigile had the most liked content!

About Vigile

  • Birthday 08/11/1966

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    St Petersburg, Russia
  • Interests
  • More About Me

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Vigile's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Very Popular Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Huh? How am I denying victims any way to address their grievances? I have done nothing here but bolster the argument for innocent until proven guilty. That means everyone is afforded due process, otherwise we just create more victims and/or engage in vigilantism. I posted an example of mass hysteria because someone (perhaps it was you) argued in favor of railroading those who are accused simply on the basis of an accusation and not conviction in a court of law. I will not apologize. If that's you, then sorry, you're just wrong and history and the law are not on your side.
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria The McMartin Preschool case was the first daycare abuse case to receive major media attention in the United States.[21] The case centered upon the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, where seven teachers were accused of kidnapping children, flying them in a plane to another location, and forcing them to engage in group sex as well as forcing them to watch animals be tortured and killed.[21] The case also involved accusations that children had been forced to participate in bizarre religious rituals, and been used to make child pornography.[22] The case began with a single accusation, made by the mother - who was later found to be a paranoid schizophrenic[3] - of one of the students, but grew rapidly when investigators informed parents of the accusation and began interviewing other students.[22] The case made headlines nationwide in 1984, and seven teachers were arrested and charged that year.[22] When a new district attorney took over the case in 1986, however, his office re-examined the evidence and dropped charges against all but two of the original defendants. Their trials became one of the longest and most expensive criminal trials in the history of the United States,[22][1] but in 1990 all of these charges were also dropped.[21] Both jurors at the trial and academic researchers later criticized the interviewing techniques that investigators had used in their investigations of the school, alleging that interviewers had "coaxed" children into making unfounded accusations, repeatedly asking children the same questions and offering various incentives until the children reported having been abused.[21] Most scholars now agree that the accusations these interviews elicited from children were false.[23][24] Sociologist Mary de Young and historian Philip Jenkins have both cited the McMartin case as the prototype for a wave of similar accusations and investigations between 1983 and 1995, which constituted a moral panic.[25][22]
  3. Holy shit that is stupid, authoritarian and evil. I'm sure HR departments love it. This is a great example of why Americans need contracts with their employers and worker protections like the free, civilized world has. I'm honestly starting to believe that liberals are more dangerous than conservatives. Willing to ruin a person's life (and yes, being fired for something like this would ruin most lives, and the lives of their wives and children too) for a mere allegation.
  4. Accusations of CB and actually demonstrating it are two very different animals.
  5. I don't know Roy Price, but Weinstein was low-hanging fruit and maybe part of the tit for tat since he was a big dem supporter. He was sure to get swept up in it. What I saw at the beginning were a bunch of democrats from the Pussy Hat movement hoping they could bring down Trump. Trump probably deserves whatever he gets but this appeared to have started in that way.
  6. I don't buy it. (no offense to you MM, I'm referring to the movement, not you or your opinion) It's just been a witch hunt and a tit for tat against political enemies. 90% of those in the movement will vote for Creepy Joe if he is the DNC nominee. If there are real abusers, give them their day in court. This is just vigilantism.
  7. This isn't serious. When I was younger and much better looking than I am now, I had done to me regularly what would be considered off limits if it occurred to women today. I found it flattering as I'm sure sane women do. It's wrong to hold someone's job over there head for sexual favors. We all know this and there are laws against it. But nothing wrong with allowing people to be human and interact like humans without getting all uptight about it. That some do now is a societal sickness. It's not healthy and it's probably just one more tactic the elite uses to keep society divided in Hegelian fashion.
  8. I agree with the line I highlighted. It falls in line with "Methinks the lady doth protest too much". But in my experience with the religious I grew up with, I didn't run into a lot of dishonesty. I guess we've had very different experiences. If I were broad brushing them, I'd call them gullible, but not dishonest. Not as a rule.
  9. I like a good jab at religion as much as the next guy, but c'mon! LOL "In comparison, only eight per cent of married adulterers claimed they are atheist or agnostic." IOW, it breaks down roughly the same way believers vs non believers breaks down in society. So, we can gather from this that "some people cheat". It doesn't matter if they are religious or not.
  10. Education seems to be creating some pretty strange belief systems nowadays too. 27 pronouns?
  11. Humans have the highest developed mental capacity, for sure, and as I mentioned, this is reflected by the fact that we have more complex rituals and rules as well. Other animals are better adapted to their environments than we are in different ways. What I'm trying to stress here is that just because we have a more developed intellectual capacity does not mean that we are necessarily designed or that we are very special, except for perhaps just in our own eyes. It just means we developed a different survival mechanism than, say bears or sharks have. We branched out in a different direction. Time will tell if that's a long term advantage or disadvantage. Right now, it's looking like a big disadvantage. Sharks have been around for millions of years in virtually the same form. Humans have been around for a few hundred thousand and we're already at risk of destroying our eco system, and as such, ourselves.
  12. I am a bit confused. I'm not so sure humans are all that different from other animals. Different species of animals behave in different ways. We are a different species. We share many characteristics and then have many that are also unique, just like virtually all other species so our differences make us the same if that makes sense. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Anyway, it stands to reason that with a more highly developed intellectual ability would come more complex rules and rituals. I personally think Rousseau is the one that best nailed human morality. We're social creatures and we develop a common system of rules within our groups. This doesn't mean the rules are arbitrary or without intrinsic value. Very much the opposite.
  13. Just for fun, the television series The Good Place entertains the question of morality and even explores many of the philosophical greats in an entertaining and simple way. This is basically the foundation of the entire series. It's really a fun watch IMO.
  14. The author you refer to in the OP seems incredibly obtuse. You don't need a book to tell you that harm (such as rape) is wrong. Morality doesn't need a higher authority. We make choices if we choose to live as a society and no society can survive if there aren't rules against harming members of society. There is a vast body of work on this in the field of philosophy that doesn't rely on anything but basic logic to support concepts of morality. Rousseau argued that morality is based on the general will of society (or that which members generally agree upon, whether subconsciously or overtly). Kant essentially argued that no one would want to live in a world based on theft, murder, etc... Locke argued that humans are basically decent and that we naturally don't want to live in a society where it's ok to steal my neighbor's chickens and rape his daughters simply because we don't want the neighbor to return the favor. If you're looking for moral absolutes, then, yeah, you'll need a religious voice of authority. But moral absolutes are kind of stupid and end up leading to great atrocities. The concept of morality, however, is not that complex and humans arrive at it in the same way we learn not to stick forks in wall sockets. BTW, evolution isn't merely survival of the fittest. There are large numbers of observations in nature where animals cooperate in order to survive. Cooperation is key to morality.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.