I agree a bit. When I heard the term used before this discussion I assumed it was used in the broad sense meaning that the murder occurred as some sort of violent occult related activities and not that the participants were engaged in a rite formally associated with Satan worship.
But when Machiavelli started to defend Mignini's letter with regard to the claim he had never used the term, Satanic Rite, I thought it would have been useful with regard to truth seeking to concede that there were no known direct quotes of Mignini using the expression. Further it would have been useful to acknowledge that Mignini never put forth any theories that were consistent with a narrow definition of Satanic Rite.
Machiavelli's also sought to limit Mignini's association with any of the salacious details of the crime that were being reported to only direct quotes of Mignini. He did this in the face of wide spread assumptions at the time that Mignini was behind the salacious theories that were being reported. He also strove to limit interpretations of what Mignini said to non occult interpretations. To me, it seemed like Machiavelli was almost functioning as a defense attorney with these arguments. The only thing admissible was that which could be reliably sourced and that didn't depend on hearsay or assumptions. FWIW, I thought Machiavelli demonstrated significant skills at argument with his approach. It also, appeared to me that intellectual honesty was not his goal. He was putting on the best defense possible for his client and a search for truth was not his goal.
When he was arguing in this mode I thought the most informative responses were those that attacked Machiavelli's arguments and not Machiavelli. I agree with Grinder that there were a lot of posts that related more to the poster's frustration at Machiavelli's approach than that were factually based counter arguments.
I found that people here were discussing about me over these last two days. It's interesting.
I decided to spend some time talking about some limited topics. But bear in mind I don't have enough time to actually sustain a detailed discussion with multiple people about one topic. Even less multiple discussions, that is multiple topics. I think basically nobody could do that. I'm not in retirement.
I was interested in davefoc's approach, because of his precise and logical questions on the topics.
I have topics left back however, I recall, in the order, about the claims against Stefanoni (like claimes that she lied, or that she refused to turn over data, or that she is not qualified etc.); the discussion about alleged "satanic" OR "ritual murder" scenario attributed to Mignini; some subsequent threads opened like about Amanda's ambiguous, threatening/blackmailing "blood on hands" memory; Charlie Wilkes addressing physical evidence and dynamics; Bill Williams repeated claims that Massei court made "findings" opposing the prosecution scenario, etc.
A great mass of claims is made by the innocentisti and they are repeated in the face of lack of backing or evidence of the contrary; moreover there is a big loss of time due to engagement by posters who indulge to provocation, meaning they decide to address me, of "Machiavelli and Vogt", thus factually diverding the topic of discussion (from my point of view). Btw these latter posters implicitly attempt to set a further reversal of "burden of proof" as I am constantly object of
dietrologia, attributed "motives" and speculations about my own "intents"; I dont blame anyone for their choice about discussion style, but I don't consider their "insinuation" approach to be intellectually balanced so it tends to disqualifies them as interlocutors.
I find strange this latter description of my intervention as a "defense attorney" for Mignini. I'm not sure the comparison entirely fits. I don't feel like a defense attorney, and I don't think I'm doing exactly what a defence attorney would do. Maybe I've been rather like a political activist or like an academic fighting for a theory as opposed to others.
My attitude contains an element of provocation that stems from a sense of outrage, actually kind of hostility which you direct against political or religious opponents, to expose the weakness of a dangerous propaganda, rather than acting as a defense attorney. The "defense attorney" comparison tends to imply it's like addressing an impartial jury, but in fact I almost never feel as if I am addressing a panel of unbiased or intellectually honest people. I am mostly opposing enemies, or people who are simple believers "manipulated" by enemy propaganda. Not open listeners, but people how already "believe" their religion and won't believe the opponent - some are people with a vested and
invested interest in 'saving' the defendants - maybe unless completely cornered and crushed by mathematical proof.
Above all, in all this I found most strange your conclusion that intellectual honesty was "not my goal". I wonter what you are based on. I'm not clearing Mgnini by assuming a specifically "narrow" definition of Satanic: on the contrary, I am saying he put forward, from the beginnig, a scenario that simply does not fit any ritualistic or cult-related murder plan, not even an occult/esoteric motive: there is basically only a sexual motive to start with, and the decision to make a little party; then, something happened which spiralled towards violence and the murder was unplanned. I am also saying that this scenario was basically unchanged, I mean: Mignini and Comodi never "changed" scenario. In the way in which it is described, the psychological details or other details they chose to mention, might sound like a different style from 2008 and 2009, but as you read it, in fact it isn't. Possible argument about money, drugs, a sexual context, clutches between Knox and Maredith over their house habits, personalities of the three perpetrators: these are the ingredients, they are identical and the story is the same.
My intent (on the satanic/ritual topic) is precisely to expose the fact that, if there are "wide spread assumptions at the time that Mignini was behind salacious theories", those wide spread assumptions are an example of irrational and unfounded claims spread by media campaigns. (Btw, ritual murder and salacious are already two different concepts, there is already a shifting both in meaning and implications). The wide spread false beliefs about what Mignini said may have a complex origin (more than one cause) yet they are unfounded, I may say they are
obviously unfounded; the fact that their belivers lack any source, actually they have both Italian press sources against them and factual documentation disproving them, is something very glaring. The believers nonetheless tend to resist a re-formulation based on the actual information, or to consider a re-framing of their incomplete information from another point of view.
However there is also another point that I consider: the approach of Bill Willams for example, who makes unsupported claims, then says "you could stop all this about Satanic rite by sharing your document". I hold firm the point that this blackmailing approach is unacceptable. And logically wrong. This is a kind of paradigm of intellectual dishonesty; and this comes from the same poster who said that "all sources in the courtroom [sic] reported that". I would expect honest posters to acknowledge facts that they have or at least acknowledge when they don't have information; for example that - even analyzing just the limited quote from Mignini's speach tha Katody posted, despite its incorrect translation - you must infer that even that quote alone suggests, actually implies, that a "ritual murder" scenario would be incompatible with Mignini's proposed scenario (the drug fueled-party).
I think it's possible but there are other possibilities such as the girl covering for their friend.
