Clergy sexual abuse of children is a "myth"

[loCAtek]

You didn't understand my answer, 'eh?

[thestoat]

You didn't understand my answer, 'eh?

Lol. Did anyone? Scooter even tried to make it easy for you by making it yes or no. Yet you have not even be able to answer that.

[loCAtek]

Very well, we agree, to disagree.

[thestoat]

Since you haven't answered Scooters question I can't say if I agree with you or not

[thestoat]

Six weeks on and still no answer from lo. I wonder if the thread can be closed with a code of "I am too scared to answer the question but instead of admitting this, I'll just evade it"

[rubato]

Clergy sexual abuse of children is a "myth"

And gravity is just a theory.

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Hmmm. Stoat, why do think impatience makes your argument correct?

'Patience is a necessary ingredient of genius.'

~Benjamin Disraeli

So, personal digs aside...

Here's one of a few times made that statement;

In its entirety, not taken out of context


ThX Scooter, I did use hyperbole with 'take over the world' and have clarified that with; some would like atheism to be the dominate philosophy. Of course, holding that opinion on what one would like, is not improper per se, nor is discussing the merits of atheism, logic, reason and science.

However, mocking or belittling religion and/or those who practice it, and not just disagreeing with it; are deliberate manipulation techniques. Techniques that are coercive attempts to change other people's behaviors. That is establishing dominance, not consensus.

Also, the use of false or misleading propaganda, is a similar dishonest controlling technique. E.G. 'All priests are pedophiles'; 'Jesus did not exist'; 'It's all mythology';and 'Wars are caused by religion', etc. These statements range from negative exaggerations, to obfuscation of religious beliefs. While some appear to be based on ignorance. All of this intimidation on a social level, only serves as a tool for subjugation, not cooperation.

I clearly made disclaimers that the propaganda was done by some/not all a atheists, but the counter-claim was made that none, as in 0% of atheists, take this position.

No where, did I claim that pedophilia was non-existent within the Church; I stated that it occurs in the same percentage of the population of any group, organization or profession. The profile is random and is not limited to any social level.

Note: Being a pedophile is not the same as being a sex offender, according to the law (in most countries); being a pedophile is not a crime; being a sex offender is.

Simply luring a child is a felony in this country, but 'Penal Law
Statute 130.96 A-II Felony - predatory sexual assault against a child', is what is usually confused with pedophilia, by the layperson.

[Scooter]

thestoat, notice how she references a completely different statement in a different thread from the one in question in order to deflect attention away from what she actually said and attempt to twist it around and accuse those who took exception with her actual statement of quoting her out of context.

Of course, accusing others of quoting out of context when they provide a direct link to where the statement was made so that anyone reading can view the entire context for themselves, is a trick she learned from the troll trio who have been coaching her in her failed efforts to throw this place off the rails. Perhaps before emulating their tactics she might have observed how well that didn't work for them.

But those of us who have grown tired of continually overestimating her ability to be honest and have been consistently disappointed as result, salute the persistence of your faith in human nature.

[loCAtek]

'Kay, your links are after the fact of my original quotes taken out of context, which I've acknowledged already.


Again, telling me what I think, rather than asking me what I think. I'm glad the Stoat is more of a gentleman than that. I've stated already, I haven't had any personal contact with the trio on CSB in years, [Where Stoat, hasn't had any interaction at all. So that's kinda unfair to bring up a made-up association, he can't check as a valid source.] ...long before Plan B was formed.

How this irrelevancy has anything with the topic, I dunno.

I'm sure the good Stoat will address the points raised, I look forward to that.

[Scooter]

See what I mean, stoat? She continues to pretend that this is about some completely unrelated statement in a completely different thread which she alleges (without proof, of course) was taken "out of context", as a deflection away from addressing the actual statement to which others took exception.

I'm sure that if and when you choose to address this latest rather pathetic attempt of obfuscation, you will still be considered a "gentleman".

[thestoat]

Oh dear.

Lo, try to focus.

Again, telling me what I think, rather than asking me what I think.

Now, focus hard. Scooter said at the very beginning of this thread :

So, do you still stand by the claim that clergy sexual abuse of children is a "myth", loCA?

He isn't telling you what to think. He is asking you. It is a question. You can see the "?" at the end of the sentence. That is a question mark - giving you the clue that the preceding sentence is a question. Are you really unable to answer this? "Yes" or "No" would seem to fit in to this, but even "I don't know" would be a very positive move.

[Sean]

Good luck mate! I went through this 'difference between a question and a statement' lesson some time ago. She didn't get it then and I doubt she'll get it now.

[thestoat]

We live in hope, Sean

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think Heraclitus had a point:

"Ποταμοῖς τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐμβαίνομέν τε καὶ οὐκ ἐμβαίνομεν, εἶμέν τε καὶ οὐκ εἶμεν."

[BoSoxGal]

I concur!

[Scooter]

It has nothing to do with whether or not people are or are not stepping in the same rivers. It's about someone refusing to acknowledge having mistakenly left the word "all" out of a statement, and instead insisting that everyone else has misread what was, in fact, the unmistakably unambiguous and grossly offensive statement which resulted.

It's about the latest example in a repeated pattern of being unwilling to take responsibility for one's own words, and trying to deflect attention away from them in the hope that everyone will forget what was actually said.

[Gob]

Hey it's Meade!!

[Timster]

I think Heraclitus had a point:

"Ποταμοῖς τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐμβαίνομέν τε καὶ οὐκ ἐμβαίνομεν, εἶμέν τε καὶ οὐκ εἶμεν."

Translation: "We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not."

Greetings General!

[loCAtek]

It has nothing to do with whether or not people are or are not stepping in the same rivers. It's about someone refusing to acknowledge having mistakenly left the word "all" out of a statement, and instead insisting that everyone else has misread what was, in fact, the unmistakably unambiguous and grossly offensive statement which resulted.

It's about the latest example in a repeated pattern of being unwilling to take responsibility for one's own words, and trying to deflect attention away from them in the hope that everyone will forget what was actually said.

Again;

Here's one of a few times made that statement;

In its entirety, not taken out of context


ThX Scooter, I did use hyperbole with 'take over the world' and have clarified that with; some would like atheism to be the dominate philosophy. Of course, holding that opinion on what one would like, is not improper per se, nor is discussing the merits of atheism, logic, reason and science.

However, mocking or belittling religion and/or those who practice it, and not just disagreeing with it; are deliberate manipulation techniques. Techniques that are coercive attempts to change other people's behaviors. That is establishing dominance, not consensus.

Also, the use of false or misleading propaganda, is a similar dishonest controlling technique. E.G. 'All priests are pedophiles'; 'Jesus did not exist'; 'It's all mythology';and 'Wars are caused by religion', etc. These statements range from negative exaggerations, to obfuscation of religious beliefs. While some appear to be based on ignorance. All of this intimidation on a social level, only serves as a tool for subjugation, not cooperation.

I clearly made disclaimers that the propaganda was done by some/not all a atheists,

As stated, yet again 'Some atheists say... ALL priest are pedophiles."

That does not mean 'ALL atheists, say... ALL priest are pedophiles."


Which is a Red Herring to the true topic that: not ALL pedophiles are sex offenders; and not ALL sex offenders are pedophiles. Lastly, that the Church harbors ALL sex offenders/pedophiles to a degree that no other organization does.

Pls show the data that demonstrates conclusively, not emotionally irrationality, that the Church has a higher percentage rate of sex offenders than any other social organization. It's the legal element that matters intellectually (and here I thought atheists were so 'scientific', could I be wrong"?)

Arguing semantics is besides the point obviously ... or it should be.

SOME can't get past the personal, to debate the talking points instead.

[Scooter]

And once again, deflecting away to a statement that is not nor has not ever been the subject of this thread.