|
xenu@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>referen@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>>Whether you agree with my opinion or not,
that is my opinion. I believe I have devoted a great deal more time and thought to this issue than you have, and I'm willing to back up my argument with documentation. I have seen no one else on any of the newsgroups to which this thread is posted who is willing to back up their own opinions with anything more substantial than personal opinion and personal invective.
>what? i've backed up my opinions with
documentation.
What documentation, Rob? Posting citations to papers you've probably
never even read is hardly adequate documentation of anything.
Your "documentation" for your claim that the term "new
religious
movements" was used as a euphemism for "cult" was genuinely
laughable.
All you could manage to come up with were short lines taken from
websites that contained both the terms. *None* of your
"documentation" supported the claim you were making.
Your very own "documentation" proved that sociologists of
religion *do
not* substitute the phrase "new religious movement" for
"cult." If
the phrase was being used as a substitute for the term "cult,"
the
word "cult" would not have appeared in any of the examples you
posted.
You stated at the time that you would provide additional documentation
for your assertion. To date, you have provided none. I assume that
you have given up your attempt to support your statement with
evidence.
>except when i do it it's a "mindless squeal to authority" and
"groupthink" and when
Exactly what "documentation" have you posted that I've described
as a
"mindless squeal to authority" or "groupthink," Rob?
The only documentation I can remember that you've posted are various
vague references to Margaret Singer's book and to Robert Jay Lifton's
criteria. These sources do nothing to prove any of your assertions --
that "new religious movements" is a term coined to replace the
word
"cult"; that your definition of the word "cult" is
adequate, or that
the "mind control" is generally accepted by psychiatrists,
psychologists, and sociologists as a valid theory.
>you do it we're supposed to buy whatever
academic crap (like hadden) you try to fob off on us. when you're just appealing to authority yourself, and to imbecilic authorities like hadden, at that.
I've posted a wide variety of source material to support my arguments.
I've presented the studies and discussed them -- I haven't merely said
the equivalent of "Margaret Singer wrote it, I believe it, and that
settles it," as the mind control adherents here have.
>>Rob, if you're so sure my opinion is wrong,
go out and dig up evidence from anyone *not* affiliated with the AFF and post it here. If
you're either unwilling or incapable of doing this, don't expect me to
prove your arguments for you -- especially when I don't agree with them.
>when have i asked you to back up my arguments?
Obviously, you're incapable of backing up your own arguments with
valid documentation.
>back up your own damn arguments, that's what i'm asking. and with facts. if you don't like conway and siegelman's regression analysis, not the earlier one you keep digging up because you obviously haven't read the latest findings. hell, i'll type in the thing myself if you insist.
Rob, to what "earlier regression analysis" are you referring? Do
you
know what you're talking about?
And please, by all means, type the thing in yourself. I insist. I
haven't been able to find a copy of the book here.
>then come up with a counterargument, instead of
shrieking that monica should "take some more TRs" and the similar lame insults
you've been tossing at her.
>and as for your bullshit about having given this more thought than i have, bite me. you rebut the growing presumption that cults use mind-control methods, and that these can cause dissociative disorders and other pathological responses in people subjected to them.
What "growing presumption," Rob? Who is making this presumption?
What evidence do you have that supports you claim that any such
presumption is growing?
This is the sort of statement you so readily fling out without
presenting any evidence to support your claim. If you have material
that proves there is a growing presumption that cults use mind-control
methods, post it here. Right now.
Among much other evidence, I presented the fact that the DSM has
removed any diagnosis for cult-induced dissociative disorder from the
official APA diagnostic manual. This strongly indicates that, if
anything, the presumption that cults use mind control methods is
waning rather than growing.
Additionally, I pointed out that Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe's
essay on cult-related disorders has been removed from the Merck
Manual, another highly regarded reference used widely by health care
personnel.
I can also point to the memorandum opinion of the judge hearing Steven
Fishman's criminal case, in which Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe
were barred from presenting testimony on "mind control" as
expert
witnesses. Both the American Psychological Association and the
American Sociological Association testified that the "mind
control"
theory was not generally accepted as a valid theory by professionals
in their disciplines. Because of the judge's ruling in this hearing,
neither Margaret Singer nor Richard Ofshe can testify as expert
witnesses on "mind control" in American courts.
On the other hand, you have failed to present any evidence whatsoever
to support your assertion. I have presented evidence that is quite
easy for anyone to substantiate for themselves.
>given quite sufficient reason for my belief in
coercive persuasion
"Sufficient reason"? I must have missed that post.
>and now rebut it instead of squealing to authority by citing the vagaries of definition in the DSM-IV as proof that margaret singer's clinical opinions are wrong.
The DSM-IV is not a book of vagaries, Rob. The diagnosis was
deliberately removed from the manual after much discussion and review.
That decision was agreed to by a vote of APA members. That's not a
vagary, that's deliberate, considered action. What a shame they
didn't ask your opinion before they made their decision!
>based on people like hadden. diane dismisses
that singer as a clinician has had more experience with cult-induced problems than anyone, such as a sociologist like hadden, has had, and hadden and his ilk have no standing to second-guess her diagnosis.
Richard Ofshe is a sociologist. Do you believe that Richard Ofshe is art of that "ilk" which has no standing to second-guess
Singer's diagnosis?
What about the majority of members of the American Psychtric
Association, Rob? Do they have no standing to second-guess Singer's
diagnosis either?
What about the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for
Psychology of the American Psychological Association, Rob? They
refused to endorse a report she authored as chair of an APA Task Force
on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control. Not only
did they refuse to endorse it, they cautioned members not to
distribute Singer's report without making it clear that the APA found
the report unacceptable.
Think whatever you like, Rob. But don't claim that you have proof for
your opinions. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that
directly refutes your claims.
Diane Richardson
referen@bway.net |
