Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

tpr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 379 posts

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#341

Post by throwawaylinux »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #340
throwawaylinux wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always funny to hear people making lists of minorities and undesirables defend themselves. None of what you're coming up with is new.

It's not a list of minorities, it's also not a list of undesirables. Listing the actions of individuals has no inherent morality. The morality of the actions is decided by the broader society. You keep painting them as victims when the list is only outlining their actions. If you have done no harm, you have nothing to fear.

That's great, you keep saving the world one list of homosexuals at a time.

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#342

Post by kevviiinn »

themitigating wrote: post #239
kevviiinn wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, perhaps I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that it's par for the course for the reactionary US political party. Definitely a bad thing

" the reactionary US political party" Republicans. I don't like the new subtle false equivalence. They are traitors.

From my perspective the Republicans are the reactionary party and the Democrats are the conservative party. It's just how far the Overton window has shifted. However I do agree that their actions do a lot to harm citizens and the country, more so than D or at least more blatantly and overtly. It's wild how they claim to be the about freedom then do everything they can to restrict it, especially with speech

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#343

Post by PartiallyTyped »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #341
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a list of minorities, it's also not a list of undesirables. Listing the actions of individuals has no inherent morality. The morality of the actions is decided by the broader society. You keep painting them as victims when the list is only outlining their actions. If you have done no harm, you have nothing to fear.

That's great, you keep saving the world one list of homosexuals at a time.

The amount of strawmans and insults you have thrown should have been your wake-up call.

As far as I am concerned, you are just another hypocrite, no different to the people in the list and this conversation is not worth it.

Again, read up on contractualism.

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#344

Post by chownie »

transcoderx wrote: post #99
chownie wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tavistock also were not performing surgeries on children. Trans people often don't even receive hormones until they're 16, I don't know how this idea that they're receiving surgery on a whim makes any sense to anyone.

Bullshit, 16 would be too late for hormone blockers. The blockers are also said to prevent the kids from adapting to their biological gender, leading onto a path to surgery. I am amazed how willing to lie people are in this forum.

Hormone blockers suppress the expression of estrogen and testosterone, I was very clearly referring to hormone replacement therapy.

Moral of the story is, people aren't lying just because you refuse to read the words written literally on the screen.

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#345

Post by chownie »

transcoderx wrote: post #196
heavyset_go wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They used to/still say the same exact thing about kids being told to be gay.

Many gay people now say the trans thing is the new conversion therapy for gay people, as they try to convince a lot of them that they are actually another gender.

> as they try to convince a lot of them that they are actually another gender

Who is "they"?

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#346

Post by chownie »

transcoderx wrote: post #221
flir wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a very rough rule of thumb, if it comes in pill form, it's probably not surgery.

The issue is kids being transitioned, in whatever way. The pills build up towards surgery.

"Being transitioned" removes agency from people who fight for years for this. You have been shown across this thread that vanishingly few even gain access to any kind of medical support until their late teens and still you insist on lying, pretending that "kids" are being transitioned against their will -- meanwhile in reality trans teens are crying out at the 5+ year long waiting lists just for access to clinics.

You have to turn your back on the trans children who grew into adults and pretend they don't exist to spin this lie where transition is a verb you apply to other people rather than a choice that someone makes for themselves.

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#347

Post by chownie »

account42 wrote: post #142
chownie wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Provide the evidence, you'll quickly find that it doesn't support the claim. No children (prepubescent) are given surgeries, a tiny minority of 16 year olds are able to receive top surgeries but the vast majority can't even get hormones until late teens.

> a tiny minority of 16 year olds are able to receive top surgeries And this is supposed to be an argument for "it never happens"? You don't see a problem with confused girls who are still coming to terms with their bodies having medically unnecessary surgery to have healthy organs removed? And yes, some of them are regretting that when they grow up. Some of them are even willing to speak up. But I'm sure you will no…

For kids, it does indeed never happen. You cannot say "children are being mutilated" and then quietly redefine late teens into being children.

> And yes, some of them are regretting that when they grow up. Some of them are even willing to speak up. But I'm sure you will not listen.

You do realize this is literally the spotlight fallacy. 99% have no regrets, 1% do, you would like to focus entirely on the 1% to the point of obsession.

How about listening to the 99% who don't have regrets? Why are you so eager to ignore the majority of the people this actually concerns, instead patronisingly deciding you know what's best?

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#348

Post by watwut »

MrPatan wrote: post #121
watwut wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vocal minority is complaining about another vocal minority targeting them, including violently. It is also complaining about other vocal minority trying to make their art and fun illegal (drag).

Illegal to do it for children . Nobody had or has any problem with what consenting adults do.

First, this is not true. Second, nothing will happen to children when they see men or women crossdressing.

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#349

Post by watwut »

at_a_remove wrote: post #226
watwut wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These laws are against all of gender affirming care. They are not against surgeries specifically. Also, puberty blockers are not surgery. The way you jumped from frequent "surgeries" to "hormones" is the exact dishonest arguing people complain about.

"prescribing hormones and surgery" "And" is a conjunctive word. It does not mean "the same as" or "a type of." We both know that.

The are no laws in the worst that would be specifically about surgeries for minors. They are way more expansive then that.

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#350

Post by kstenerud »

Stevvo wrote: post #320
kstenerud wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it was Hermann Hesse who wrote that "If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." This sounds nice and pithy, but it's trivial to debunk. Beheading someone is not part of myself, but it most certainly disturbs me. And I certainly wouldn't be hating something in myself by hating someone who perpetrated such a grisly crime.

It's speaking to Jungian idea of the shadow; you're not meant to take it so literally.

Unfortunately, it's not taken that way in modern times. Nowadays it's usually used for arguments like "Hate X? You must be secretly X!"
Post reply on HN