Doctor Scratch wrote:The point of all of this is that he *did not* support “the fight against human trafficking and the sexual exploitation of children.” Instead, his donations went into the pocket of a charlatan—a mountebank
It's worse than that. There are all kinds of other bad things. One of the most obvious is that these are sting operations. In other words, they aren't breaking the door down when a real criminal has kids brought to him that would have ben brought anyway, they are posing as sex tourists, placing an order, a bus full of kids are rounded up and brought in, and then the doors are kicked down and guns drawn, putting the kids directly in danger, traumatizing them, and often leaving them without a reliable way to get back home. The kids are being used as bait for what's basically a wannabe reality TV show.
And new evidence is coming to light that there may have been incidences of "establishing credibility" by engaging with the minors to some degree.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
What you are describing, Dean Robbers, is absolutely horrific. And yet there is no real condemnation of this from “SeN.” We get this:
Anything that hinders the goal of putting an end to the sexual exploitation of minors is, to put it mildly, regrettable.
All I know about this particular matter, though, is what I’ve read online, and I haven’t been following it with any special care until today.
So his donations were “regrettable,” *except* that they might not be since he hasn’t “been following” the issue “with any special care.” Is his apathy something that could be construed as “hinder[ing] the goal of putting an end to the sexual exploitation of minors“? Why not condemn this in the strongest possible terms? Barring that, why not at least subject Ballard to the same kind of treatment that the Mopologists dished out for far lesser actions?
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Peterson is an unserious and apathetic man. I doubt he donated to the scam. I don’t doubt he wanted people to believe he did when it was fashionable todo so, but did he? Nah. No way.
Consider the facts: DCP happily oversaw an article that involved sifting through months of John Dehlin’s social media activity in order to discredit Dehlin, and he stood so firmly behind that action that it got him kicked out of the Maxwell Institute. He also spent years supporting Mike Parker’s smear blog, calling it “sadly necessary.” What was Jonathan Neville guilty of? Calling DCP “slander Dan”? And that is somehow worse than what Ballard did? If Neville had managed to rip DCP off to the tune of…what, thousands of dollars? Hundreds? Would that merit a “Neville-Neville Land”/Grant Palmer-FARMS-Review-Pile-Up type of response? Or, instead, would he get off lightly, like Ballard? What if Ballard had looked at DCP’s Amazon wishlist, and it actually turned out that his kid had snuck on there and put Grand Theft Auto 3 onto the list? What then?
The whole episode speaks volumes about the Mopologists’ priorities and motives—and their morality. It’s perfectly fitting that DCP has nothing to say beyond a shrug in response to these revelations. He probably sees a lot of himself in Tim Ballard.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
me wrote:The "whatever it takes" logic isn't unexpected -- I have to defend Tim on this one at least from the perspective of LDS theology. Joseph also had to do "whatever it takes" under threat of flaming sword.
Top
I hesitated going beyond this comment yesterday. I'm a sucker for speculation, but certain subject matter is taboo enough that I think insinuation of possible offense is wrong, no matter how ideologically opposed to the person in question, or how lame the person in question. So I pulled a hard stop.
I'm listing to RFM's YouTube update for today and oh boy, it's going exactly where I expected it to go (or where I would expect it to go eventually, I was a bit surprised it has already possibly gone there already), and so yesterday's "hard stop" is a "continue" for today.
The allegation is that T claimed to coerce female companions to do "married couple" things with him to "make it more believable" that they were married. The logic is good for a laugh. However, the "whatever it takes" logic is quite applicable to crossing boundaries with the young girls.
Remember the series 24? Well, during one of the last seasons, Jack Bauer had to become a heroin addict in order to go deep cover into South America somewhere. That's what "whatever it takes" really means. Basic logic dictates that T and company will never get beyond the posers and rank amateurs without establishing credibility, and there is really only one way that will ever happen. Even when it comes to consenting adults skirting the law with this stuff, providers use reference systems and validate potential customers by verifying their fellow providers.
Dean Robbers:
The gauntlet has been thrown down:
Can anybody seriously maintain that Tim Ballard became too physically intimate with women other than his wife (as some have charged, though thus far over his denials and without demonstrating it to be true, and without indictment, let alone conviction) in accordance with the teachings of his Church rather than in direct opposition to them?
Dr. Peterson is really crumpling under the pressure of this scandal. He misidentifying people and seems to be having difficulty with his reading comprehension.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
I just want to state for the record you don’t have to gO dEeP uNdErCoVeR to nab wrongdoers. Two examples if I may, from my Army days:
#1 - we nabbed a guy who was going to shoot up a diner where military personnel would frequently eat breakfast. We literally kicked down the door the day he was going to do it - guns and whatnot were spread out all over his bed and he was packing up to go do his deed. We got him through informants and warrants to do some things to build a case against him. He’s been put away for good.
No psychic was consulted. We didn’t have to become radicals.
#2 - long story short, we busted a Chinese spy at Los Alamos, and it was done by the book.
No psychic was needed. We didn’t have to memorize the Little Red Book.
I can’t imagine the pain and suffering Tim Baltard has caused. It’s unbelievable. Peterson needs to man up, and denounce that clown.
Peterson needs to man up, and denounce that clown.
- Doc
I wouldn't hold your breath...
Let’s assume, for the moment and for purposes of discussion, that absolutely every accusation made against Tim Ballard and Operation Underground Railroad is true, even the most lurid ones. (I have no particular reason, personally, to believe that any of the accusations is true, but I could easily be wrong.)
Over on the Peterson Obsession Board, my Malevolent Stalker is suggesting that I resign from my role in the Interpreter Foundation and with the Foundation’s Six Days in August film project because of the cloud that my close association with OUR and Tim Ballard has put them under. My close association? Somebody over there even described us as “close friends.”
But, so far as I’m aware, I’ve never met Tim Ballard nor even corresponded with him or spoken with him. I read about OUR’s efforts to liberate children from sexual servitude, thought it an exceptionally noble cause, decided to donate money to support it, and decided to invite others to do so. That’s it.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Peterson has no credibility. He always fudges and makes it seem as if his hands are always clean. How convenient for him and his merry band of cultists.
