Clergy sexual abuse of children is a "myth"

[thestoat]

NO - you all have it wrong. The truth is that cars can be blue. Not all of them. But some. There - I must surely have answered the thread topic now

[Scooter]

That would be the "there are blue cars" myth.

[Sean]

But I never claimed that all blue cars are Toyotas. This is a myth perpetuated by BP!

[loCAtek]

The subject of this thread was a misquote of this statement;

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.[/quote]

[Scooter]

The subject of this thread was not a misquote of that statement or of any statement, nor did it have anything to do with that statement you keep requoting even though you have been told over and over and over and over and over again that you are addressing the wrong statement.

This is the statement that is the subject of this thread:

Oh thX sean, we were needing an example of the 'priests are pedophiles' myth.

and here is where it came from. Not as if that hasn't been pointed out numerous times already.

Now, I no longer give a pigeon's shit whether you choose to address the words you actually chose to utter, which have been quoted or linked to absolutely faithfully every time they have been referenced, but I'll be fucked by a pitchfork before I stand by and have the likes of you accuse ME of being a liar by misquoting you, which I have never done, a courtesy which you have repeatedly failed to reciprocate, btw, to the point of inventing words out of whole cloth to put into my mouth.

So go ahead, use all the large type and boldface you want to discuss a post that NO ONE, except you, has EVER made reference to in this thread. In doing so you provide all the evidence necessary that you are too much of gutless chicken shit to take responsibility for your own words which, I repeat once more, have been reproduced absolutely faithfully and/or directly linked to EVERY time they have been referenced.

[thestoat]

According to loCAtek, that is. She made that claim here.

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

There can't possibly be any more "appropriate" thread than one specifically created to answer the question.

One again, the only honest and non-evasive answers are "yes" or "no".

I would bet my house on her not providing a yes or no answer to that question, but there isn't anyone stupid enough to take the opposite side of that action at any odds.

Just to remind you of the op, lo. Looks like Scooter wins his bet - you have failed to answer his simple question.

[rubato]

That would be the "there are blue cars" myth.

Do you mean cars which appear to be blue or cars which actually are blue?

Are we talking about a mere superficial appearance of blue or the essence of blueness?

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

"loCAtek wrote:
Oh thX sean, we were needing an example of the 'priests are pedophiles' myth."

I didn't bother looking at what loCa was referring to but, very technically and narrowly, her statement as such doesn't necessarily declare that ALL statements accusing priests of pedophilia are myths (although she may have meant it).

It is (language-wise) an accurate statement that there is a myth set "priests are pedophiles" which does by its very nature refer either to all "priests" - not just some - or to "any priest". Which in turn boils down to "all" (take any priest and you find he is a pedophile).

Now this is not to say that sean SAID "all priests are pedophiles" nor that whatever he did say actually belongs in a myth-category.

What it does mean is that loCa's statement itself unquestionably refers to a myth that "all" priests or "any given" priest are/is pedophiliac in orientation. I don't know if it is a myth - it certainly seems like a rash generalization and factually inaccurate.

She doesn't have to qualify the statement with the word "all" no matter what anyone may think. The words "priests are pedophiles" are absolutely inclusive - everything in the set priests is also in the set pedophile. This issue is perhaps clearer if one said that "pedophiles are priests". Now everyone would object that the word structure assumes "all pedophiles are priests" (or "any given pedophile is a priest") and would rightly object.

It's a language thing. Isn't it?
Meade

[Scooter]

All that is quite possible. And yet I think you'll forgive me for not embracing your explanation as the correct one when the author has had two months to make the very same clarification, and instead has chosen to bob and weave and accuse others of "misquoting" her and taking her comments "out of context", whatever that is supposed to me. Why what you claim to be simply "a language thing" would require such attempts at obfuscation is so beyond comprehension that it leads to quite another conclusion about what she actually meant, a conclusion that puts her on the side of the child rapists by accusing all of their victims to be liars. It certainly makes sense that she wouldn't wish to make THAT position any clearer, as opposed to the rather banal one you implicitly claim she holds.

[Andrew D]

And in the end, the most horrific aspect of the scandal is not the pedophile priests. (Yes, the sexual abuse of children is a horrific thing; my emphasis is on the word "most".)

The most horrific aspect of the scandal is the ecclesiastic hierarchy's covering it up. At least for decades, many bishops (and probably some cardinals, and maybe even some popes) knew about it and (a) did nothing to stop it and (b) did things which furthered it.

It may be impossible to say with certainty whether by doing (b) things which furthered it, hierarchs intended to further it. But that is the difference between negligent or reckless furtherance and deliberate furtherance. It may matter to the question of an individual hierarch's culpability, but surely the masses of parishioners around the world deserve far better than even negligent furtherance of the sexual abuse of children -- especially from hierarchs in an institution which claims the authority to decide for the entire world what is and what is not moral behavior.

[thestoat]

Andrew - I am personally not sure which is worse, the act or the cover up, but I agree that both are disgusting. Some here don't believe there is a cover up though ...

[loCAtek]

Thank you Gen'rl and AndrewD for reading, and not projecting.

[thestoat]

Still no answer ...

[loCAtek]

Maybe you missed this, 'eh?

The subject of this thread was a misquote of this statement;

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.

[/quote]


What else you wanna know?

[Scooter]

So go ahead, use all the large type and boldface you want to discuss a post that NO ONE, except you, has EVER made reference to in this thread. In doing so you provide all the evidence necessary that you are too much of gutless chicken shit to take responsibility for your own words which, I repeat once more, have been reproduced absolutely faithfully and/or directly linked to EVERY time they have been referenced.

Guess you missed that one.

Thanks for walking right into it and proving my point.

[dgs49]

I think Meade is right. The statement "priests are pedophiles," is, like it or not, one and the same as a statement that, "ALL priests are pedophiles." Which is a myth.

One that is often promoted on this very board, I might add.

LoCA did NOT say that, "Clergy sexual abuse of children is a 'myth.'" What she said was that it is a myth that all priests are pedophiles. Correct statement. No apologies or retraction are required.

[Scooter]

You're certainly entitled to your interpretation Dave. You might ask yourself, though, if you are correct, why that simple clarification could not have been made when the question about it was first posed. All she would have had to say was "I thought that the 'all' was understood from my statement," or words to that effect, instead of expending a thousand times more time and effort to compose post after post of deflection and outright lying.

You may believe that she has nothing to apologize for. Her behaviour in dealing with it, or rather, to avoid dealing with it, suggests that she doesn't agree with you.

[Gob]

LoCA did NOT say that, "Clergy sexual abuse of children is a 'myth.'" What she said was that it is a myth that all priests are pedophiles. Correct statement. No apologies or retraction are required.

Wrong I'm afraid dave, Sean quoted her;

In fact I'd better quote it before she edits it away...

Oh thX sean, we were needing an example of the 'priests are pedophiles' myth.

Poor Dr. Leary, the Pope of Dope, I believe this was from his 'stand up philosopher' stage, when he admits to just making things up for a shock/laff.

I dunno how reputable I'd find the philosophy of guy who's wife and daughter killed themselves, and who was publicly denounced by his own son.

When he was dying in 1996, he was mostly famous for being famous, the oldest celebutant, a 76-year-old guy in a wheelchair at the Viper Room

Mind you, she also got Dennis Leary and Timothy Leary confused in that post.

[Sean]

I think Meade is right. The statement "priests are pedophiles," is, like it or not, one and the same as a statement that, "ALL priests are pedophiles." Which is a myth.

One that is often promoted on this very board, I might add.

LoCA did NOT say that, "Clergy sexual abuse of children is a 'myth.'" What she said was that it is a myth that all priests are pedophiles. Correct statement. No apologies or retraction are required.

Care to back that up?

[dgs49]

Have you ever read any of rubato's postings on the subject?