Complaints about threads

6th

love it

Stark

I'm going to wait in bushes and take pictures of your kids with my aura camera.

6th

The over -protective parent in me wants to kick your ass a little but the rest of me finds that image very funny.

Stark

Well Jackie claims that aura reading is dangerous to both parties. I'd be very interested to know what she means by that.

Gordon

I'm still not quite sure of what Jackie has a problem with to be honest, and I've read her posts twice now.

Jackie, is your problem with the forum the fact that you think that spirituality is a load of nonsense? And if desperate people find the forum they will be influenced by the spiritual beliefs of the forum? Hence it is embuing nonsense onto people?

If that's the case then I would have an argument to ban the Bible from bookshops as I think there's a load of nonsense in the bible. And I think that there is some very dangerous stuff in there that shouldn't be taught to children - such as; an eye for an eye, and cutting people's foreskins off to marry a princess. It's a very destructive and dribblingly nonsensical book, I'd appreciate it if people stopped reading it.

Nevyn

Welcome back Jackie,

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I had been dismissive of the new age spirituality fashion but I found the gothic beliefs and the seriousness in the thread startling. I don’t think people reading up their starsign for the week or going to a mystic, psychic or fortune teller for a laugh is problematic. However, the contributors to this thread are not having a laugh.

You are right the forum and that thread in particular is serious and and there are many there who have a lot of experience in these matters.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

In other words, I believe it a deformation of the notion of tolerance to accept everyone’s point of view as equal and immune to challenge. That’s not tolerance but extreme relativism.

If you believe it to all be exploitative claptrap then fine you are entitled to that opinion and if that is the case then ciggarettes do more damnage.

If you want a debate on the matters then fine do start a thread with in the spirituality forum but due to the intangiblity of many matters it may not be productive but if you wish to try I will certainly try to keep it open minded and constructive.

The thread that you have such objection to it rather experimental and if I has one of the mods of the form believe that all due care and attension and all precuations are not been taken by those putting together thier group i will certainly say so and make a point of not endorsing it with a post in rather large bold red letters.

There are those that post with the forum who are more experienced and we do try to impart so of our hard earned wisdom to those who have yet to garner the same ammount of experiences.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I’m not competent with the quote button but here are two examples from the thread:

I have added names to the quote you took from the thread,

scorplett wrote:

“It would not be as appropriate to vet people attending as it might be with some of the situations that I have come across in my psychic development (ie closed groups or tight networks of friends) you need to recognise the negatives of this and find soloutions before they bite you in the ass. It would be very irresponsable to open up inexperianced people psycically only to have a psychic vampire sort or, mind rapists or controllers, astral intruders, fundies of some nature or general misfits come along to disturb things, mot to mention the energy entities and thoughtforms that would be immediatley attracted. (and believe me, from personal experiance, even with precautions these things almost always happen) Needless to say, these sort of events can be totally catastrophic to a person. Also, one of the primary methods to open an individual in this way is through guided meditation and this if done in an incorrect way can also be detrimental to the development of a person spiritually and psychically.”

scorplett is a Wiccan High Priestess ( Yes she outed her self in the paganism forum I an not outing anyone) and a witch who has many year experience of spiritual and physic matters and working with group with in this context.

Thaedydal wrote:

“Psychometry, no problem with that or pendalum work.
Aura reading well that has several dangers to both parties and a whole heap of applictions what ones will be covered ?
Contacting spirit guides this would be to my mind a possible mindfield.”

And The other was myself I am a witch also and I have been dealing spirits and physic matter for over 15 years and have had some of the most awful and wonderful experience working with groups in varying contexts.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Now, I regard this as dribbling idiocy but the contributors themselves are pointing to dangers. There cannot be any physical danger. Clearly the danger is to someone who might be frightened by the “Hammer Horror” terminology or might find false refuge in a time of crisis. However, if the people on the thread truly believe that they are into something dangerous, they should stop.

Well my dear it is either a lot of hookum or it isn't and if it is what the harm ?

Yes dealing with matters of such nature can be dangerous,
so is using a sharp knife and so is dealing with fire.
Lots of people use sharp knifes everyday they are taught to do so and respect the sharpness of the blade but everyone has been cut at sometime, and has learned from it.

Children get such lessons and guidance usually from thier parents;
not everyone who is aware of spirtis or has what ever physic gifts latent or other wise will have parents or trusted elders to teach them.
So people go looking and you can't stop them all you can do is be kind enough
to point out the pitfalls and if they persist then on thier own heads be it.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I realise that some of these people are unfortunate true believers

Oh it has been a while from someone last called me an unfortunate
Those of us that have such a dimension to our lives don't view it that way,
unless they manage to really screw things up and again it is thier choice.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

but there’s also exploitation on an industrial scale in the sale of books, objects, cures, therapies. The latter group are charlatans.

I agree an awful lot of the published stuff out there currently is dross and most things that are published by llewellyn would be that as far as I am concerned but a fool and thier money are easily parted.

There is no exploitation happening with in the forum, there is no one peddling anything or any cure alls that would be against the charter and rules of the forum and people have been banned for it.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

On balance I think that “religion” is not the place for “spirituality” – although that might seem paradoxical – mainly because so many of the believers insist that they have nothing to do with religion.

For a lot of people it is part of thier religion it is certaintly part of mine,
but yes there are those who have such experiences and hold such bliefs that would be deemed heretical by the religion that they were brought up in but have yet to find a religion or a set of beliefs that encompasses what is to them very real life experiences or a way to marry what faith they profess and this side of thier life it is for this the spirituality forum was created.

People wanted to talk and disscus these thing but were not happy doing so in the paganism forum for they did not profess a pagan faith of any sort.
And so the spirituality forum was set up.

You can read about how this was done and why here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2481553#post2481553

and here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1967798#post1967798

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Certainly, the views should not be immune to criticism and ridicule. (I’ve been adding “ridicule” lately because it’s become important to mention it since the Islamic cartoon controversy.)

If you want to respectully challange matters and issues fine,
and I can even take personally a large ammount of ridicule and have no problems poking fun at myself and my own beliefs which can be seen by some of my posts in this thread but as the guidelines for the site and the rules of the charter for the spirituality forum say you have to respect peoples rights to believe what they want.

Personally I think Kernel is cracked with his belief in little green men but as he can't prove to me that they do or don't exsist so I don't get into it with him.
He has his beliefs I have mine and really this thread has outed me enough on certain topics to the site as a whole, but there is nothing that I have not stated here in this thread that I would not in any of the forums I mod /shrugs.

CuLT wrote:

Thaedydal is the mathematical constant for lunacy.

Beruthiel

Thaedydal wrote:

Personally I think Kernel is cracked with his belief in little green men

well how wrong you are madam!

Nevyn

pff Orions aren't little,
and that appears to be an Orion female so not male or a man
and you are terrible to try twarth any sensible male posts to this thread with that image.

Hobbes

psychic vampire sort or, mind rapists or controllers, astral intruders,

Ok I guess what a controller or astral intruder are, but wtf are the other two?

Beruthiel

Thaedydal wrote:

pff Orions aren't little,
and that appears to be an Orion female so not male or a man.

Ah now you're just splitting hairs woman

Nevyn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_vampire
a mind rapist is some one who has psychic enough gifts to play mind games with a person either from making them fell uncomfortible to headaches to gleaning information from them and using it against them all just for amusment.

Jackie laughlin

I didn’t say that “reading auras” was dangerous. I was quoting a posting from the thread moderator.

There was a joke somewhere above about taking a picture of my children’s auras. There’s nothing mysterious about this except the daft use of the word “aura”. Everything has an electromagnetic field and it can detected and presented visually. In the early days of integrated circuitry it was a problem for the electronics industry as a worker’s field could cause damage.

I’m not hiding the fact that my first input was to ask if the people were serious. Having engaged debate, I still often feel that this has to be a joke.

It may be creepy to feel that someone is adopting a formal or excessively “rational” mode of expression but it is even more creepy to feel that you have to be extra careful how you say something.

At this stage I don’t really see how I can be accused of wanting to stop discussion because I don’t like what others are saying. I don’t accept absolute truth; I think that truth can only be approached through argument. Moreover, a belief which is not regularly challenged becomes a mere dogma. (OK, I stole that from J.S. Mill.)

(Oh yes, I was asked why I felt that I had to challenge anything? Well, discussion is part of enjoying life. Doesn’t everyone have a duty to say so and why, when they disagree or think something nonsense or even dangerous?)

Discussion is one of the best uses yet found for the net. It seems to me, however, pointless – even deadening – for like-minded people to congregate without any chance of their views being challenged. It was suggested that I take myself off to the sceptics thread. However, there I would see agreement and therefore no chance of discussion or development.

Sure, there are threads where different views collide and people go there to watch and to participate. However, this smacks of elitism. Questioning needs to be carried to those least likely to seek to be challenged.

Gordon

Jackie, what do you want us to do?

Nevyn

Yes but you stated you didnt want to take part in disscusions as you came here
and started this thread to see how you could have the spirituality forum closed.

BlitzKrieg

but it is even more creepy to feel that you have to be extra careful how you say something.

uhh...that was my point.

The people who are adopting a formal or excessively 'rational' mode are feeling they have to be extra careful how they say something.

stevenmu

BlitzKrieg wrote:

uhh...that was my point.

The people who are adopting a formal or excessively 'rational' mode are feeling they have to be extra careful how they say something.

This is the internet, where people strive to misunderstand everything they possibly can (as you've already seen ). Why not take a few extra seconds to make what you're saying as clear as possible.

BlitzKrieg

People who excessively FORMAL are the ones feeling they need to be extra CAREFUL when they are SPEAKING

hence they are CREEPY


clear enough?

Jackie laughlin

Gordan,
I don't know.

I would no longer consider the proposition that "spirituality" threads should be closed down. They are better out in the open. For now, I think that sceptic, spiritual and anything similar should be grouped together.

The very people whose views need to be challenged seem to be denied that by moderators who want to keep the thread "relevant". I accept that allowing freedom of speech on a thread would risk someone vandalising discussion. Having said that, I'm inclined to the view that freedom and debate should trump belief/comfort.

Gordon

OK Jackie,then I think for now we'll just let things go on as they have done. And if you have any needs to challenge views then Thaedydal mentions that she has no problem with you starting a thread on the forum. However, you know yourself that if you barge in on an existing thread claiming "claptrap" then it won't be welcome.

It's not a matter of freedom and debate trumping belief and comfort, it's a matter of On Topicness trumping freedom and debate.

If you want spiritual and sceptical to be merged then I propose we merge Christianity with Islam.

Nevyn

This will be my last repy on this thread I have other things to devote time and engry to.

Again Jackie you are welcome to start your own threads in the forum asking questioning and challenging just don't hijack exsisting threads and do take time to read the charter of the forum and abide by the rules while posting.
Have a nice day.
Thaedydal

Hobbes

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The very people whose views need to be challenged seem to be denied that by moderators who want to keep the thread "relevant".

No they don't. They can open a thread in Skeptics and people will respond there in that context. There is absolutly nothing to stop someone, and I think you are under some belief that this doesn't go on.

For example. Islam forum is not a forum for people to discuss how they hate Islam or why Islam is wrong. However they are more then free to open a thread on say Politics/Humanities and muslims do respond there. Such threads opened in the Islam forum tend to get moved to those forums (unless the poster was just being a troll/asshole).

The problem with your idea is that people with certain beliefs would be under constant attack from others to defend thier beliefs.

While there are many who are more then happy to do this, there is only so many times you can listen to the same crap being spouted before it becomes detrimental to the forums original purpose.

So in summary. Use the correct forum for the correct debate.

6th

The Skeptic Forum recently had a thread about the science involved with the paranormal and quiet a few from the Paranormal Forum got involved ..... great craic.

chump

careful now

Talliesin

Gordon wrote:

It's not a matter of freedom and debate trumping belief and comfort, it's a matter of On Topicness trumping freedom and debate.

It's a variant upon freedom of speech not entitling one to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre - it doesn't really entitle you to start yapping away about how you really can't stand Tom Stoppard's plays in the middle of a production of Arcadia. You can certainly do so during the interval though (i.e. start another thread, since whatever views you hold would still fit under "sprituality").

GoneShootin

Gordon wrote:

I propose we merge Christianity with Islam.

Chrislam?
Islianity?

Terry

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I happened upon the “Spirituality” thread and went in to take a look. I was shocked to the point that I raised the question of censorship. I did not advocate it. I regret raising it now; it was a kneejerk reaction. I accept that people (including children) cannot and should not be protected from words and most other expressions. Wilful stupidity is common. I generally don’t believe in strong media effects.

why did it bother you so much?

Jackie Laughlin wrote:

I had been dismissive of the new age spirituality fashion but I found the gothic beliefs and the seriousness in the thread startling. I don’t think people reading up their starsign for the week or going to a mystic, psychic or fortune teller for a laugh is problematic. However, the contributors to this thread are not having a laugh.

i get the impression that you se people on the streets, wearing black and listening to souixie and the banshees and you laugh at them because you find it harmles. that's fair enough. i laugh at them too. most people do.
well, ok. i don't laugh, but it does raise a smile.
so some people take tarot reading seropusly. what is your problem with this? why does it upset you so?

Yes, I’m of a sceptical frame of mind.

no! :shock:

I admire the western enlightenment tradition. On another thread I’m defending myself for saying that the Islamic view on inequality should be subjected to liberal western criticism and ridicule. In other words, I believe it a deformation of the notion of tolerance to accept everyone’s point of view as equal and immune to challenge. That’s not tolerance but extreme relativism.

big words upset the drunk.

I’m an ordinary citizen and in a free society it’s probably up to the likes of me to challenge psychics, healers, clairvoyants, astrologers, numerologists, alchemists, angel aficionados etc. etc. However, that apparently is not allowed in their own threads. I realise that some of these people are unfortunate true believers but there’s also exploitation on an industrial scale in the sale of books, objects, cures, therapies. The latter group are charlatans.

why do you feel the need to challenge them?

On balance I think that “religion” is not the place for “spirituality” – although that might seem paradoxical – mainly because so many of the believers insist that they have nothing to do with religion. There is a “sceptics” category and it might be twinned with “spirituality”. Certainly, the views should not be immune to criticism and ridicule. (I’ve been adding “ridicule” lately because it’s become important to mention it since the Islamic cartoon controversy.)

1. christian belief: the father, the son and the holy spirit
2. the islam cartoon: are you muslim?
if not, i suggest you take a look at south park. they ridicule every major religion, without prejudice.

one last question. what faith do you practice and why do you feel the need to put down faiths other than your own?

Terry

Jackie wrote:

Discussion is one of the best uses yet found for the net. It seems to me, however, pointless – even deadening – for like-minded people to congregate without any chance of their views being challenged. It was suggested that I take myself off to the sceptics thread. However, there I would see agreement and therefore no chance of discussion or development.

Sure, there are threads where different views collide and people go there to watch and to participate. However, this smacks of elitism. Questioning needs to be carried to those least likely to seek to be challenged.

a couple of times i have gone to the catholicism forum and questioned their beliefs.
i politely asked some questions and was met with polite answers.
courtesy gets you everywhere.

amp

monkeyfudge wrote:

Behold!

The Southern Boobook!

Excellent. You have gained 2 amp points.

Jackie laughlin

Julep,
Perhaps the Catholics are different but I've found that courtesy attracts abuse and puerile attempts at ridicule. I might add that this doesn't upset me but obviously I'd prefer debate.



Christianity and Islam are in the same section already along with spirituality.

I see what some of you mean when you talk about responding to the same points over again; it's started to happen to me. Nevertheless, a person's views need constant challenge. The problem with discussing, say, Islam under "society" or "politics" is that these threads will attract only moderate Islamists (I'm not sure if that is the correct term.) who want their beliefs challenged.

I found "spiritualism" shocking, I guess, because I had not before seen such extreme beliefs advanced seriously. There are aspects of religion which are questionable - perhaps religion is questionable - but the spiritualists are different in two respects. Firstly, they are more firm in their beliefs; they don't doubt. Secondly, their beliefs are much more strange than a belief in God. They even regard what they do as dangerous - or two of them who write here say so. They believe in witchcraft, angels, psychic power, evil spirits, that crystals have power (sugar??), astrology .... I could go on; the list sometimes seems endless. I wonder is there some trait on display which impels people towards the bizarre? What I mean is, are there people who are attracted to something because it is bizarre, novel or perhaps because it means admission to an exclusive in-group? This puts me in mind of teen cults who enjoy the idea that they are misunderstood by as many people as possible.

I can view the spiritualists as interesting, worthy opponents in debate, part of the wonderful odd tapestry of life. However, despite my attempts to be very rational and open, I have to say I find the area repulsive; my impression is of people who would like to live in a cheap horror movie.

I hope the reaction to this won't be too bad.

Oryx

Your mindset comes across probably more clearly than you realise, and has done from the beginning. I stood back from this argument because I dont argue in real life and I certainly wont argue pointlessly here. I know you find the whole area repulsive and a joke, and it will be hard to have a civilised debate with someone who is so clearly opposed to some of the things I hold dear.

I just wish to say. A spiritualist is a whole different thing to someone who is spiritual. There is a very important distinction.

Do not lump together all the beliefs you mention and assume everyone here believes everything 'alternative'. I for one do not, and I can be quite healthily sceptical about some matters. But I do accept openly the beliefs of others as being their own personal choice. If I feel people are being misled, I will say so but to only inform them of my view, not attack or convert.

I think you are becoming more familiar with the protocol at work in forums now at least - in the same way as it is rude to butt into a conversation irl, it is also rude to do so here.

As thaedydal would say 'have a nice day'