Talk:Voodoo Molestation: Difference between revisions
From BoyWiki
No edit summary |
re |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
When you write "''The majority wrote, "It is common ground that the victim suffers continuing and grievous harm''", it is likely a good idea to indicate that this harm is not scientifically demonstrable. It does not show up on MRI's and no changes in the structure of the brain structure due to this " ongoing grievous harm" has ever been shown in any way. There is no evidence of this ongoing harm doing any psychical damage whatsoever. That it is based on a belief(a mythology of abuse) and not a demonstrable fact. --[[User:Etenne|Etenne]] ([[User talk:Etenne|talk]]) 01:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | When you write "''The majority wrote, "It is common ground that the victim suffers continuing and grievous harm''", it is likely a good idea to indicate that this harm is not scientifically demonstrable. It does not show up on MRI's and no changes in the structure of the brain structure due to this " ongoing grievous harm" has ever been shown in any way. There is no evidence of this ongoing harm doing any psychical damage whatsoever. That it is based on a belief(a mythology of abuse) and not a demonstrable fact. --[[User:Etenne|Etenne]] ([[User talk:Etenne|talk]]) 01:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
:The reason they said it was common ground was that even Paroline's lawyers wrote, on page 50 of [http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-8561_pet.authcheckdam.pdf their brief], "Amy's profound suffering is due in large part to her knowledge that each day, untold numbers of people across the world are viewing and distributing images of her sexual abuse." It sucks when even your own counsel makes stipulations against you. [[User:Lysander|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander|talk]]) 01:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:54, 25 March 2015
When you write "The majority wrote, "It is common ground that the victim suffers continuing and grievous harm", it is likely a good idea to indicate that this harm is not scientifically demonstrable. It does not show up on MRI's and no changes in the structure of the brain structure due to this " ongoing grievous harm" has ever been shown in any way. There is no evidence of this ongoing harm doing any psychical damage whatsoever. That it is based on a belief(a mythology of abuse) and not a demonstrable fact. --Etenne (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- The reason they said it was common ground was that even Paroline's lawyers wrote, on page 50 of their brief, "Amy's profound suffering is due in large part to her knowledge that each day, untold numbers of people across the world are viewing and distributing images of her sexual abuse." It sucks when even your own counsel makes stipulations against you. Lysander (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
