Clergy sexual abuse of children is a "myth"

[Scooter]

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.

[The Hen]

It would be a bit hard to argue that it is a myth when even the Pope admits that this has occurred.

[Gob]

I suppose it depends on your definition of "myth", I'd expect at least a Piked Arablian Double Front on this one.

[Sean]

I think you're overestimating the technique Strop. I'm expecting more of a run and bomb.

[Sean]

Conspicuous by her absence today...

[Scooter]

So there we have it. By not retracting her earlier statement, loCAtek has confirmed for us that she believes clergy sexual abuse of children to be a complete fiction. All of those thousands upon thousands of victims were nothing but a bunch of liars making false accusations to malign the good name of Holy Mother Church and her priestly servants, and maybe make a buck or two while they were at it.

I'll be bumping this thread to the top of the pile from time to time, just so that it is remembered that loCAtek stands in solidarity with rapists against their victims.

[Sean]

But they're not rapists Scoot. It's all a myth doncherknow.

I blame the atheists...

[dales]

No, no, no...Sean.

It's that d@nmed flying spaghetti monster!

[oldr_n_wsr]

Don't mess with the FSM, he is a vengeful god.

[loCAtek]

~Heh, so this was all baiting then?

Thought so, Glad I took my time before reading it today.

Here's your sign...



BEWARE OF FAILING FREAKS

[thestoat]

Lo - just checking this thread - Scooter (and Sean and others) have asked you a very simple question - even starting this thread since you didn't want to discuss your own assertion in a previous thread. If you don't plan to answer then please just state "I will not answer this" because I am genuinely curious to know your meaning when you said "we were needing an example of the 'priests are pedophiles' myth"

[dgs49]

Why create a whole thread about an ill-considered statement.

How about, "the ALL priests are pedophiles myth"? Which is probably what she intended to say.

Better?

[Gob]

Why create a whole thread about an ill-considered statement.

How about, "the ALL priests are pedophiles myth"? Which is probably what she intended to say.

Better?

Of course that would be better Dave. It's just fun poking the idiot who doesn't have the honesty to admit to a mistake.

[Sean]

Why create a whole thread about an ill-considered statement.

How about, "the ALL priests are pedophiles myth"? Which is probably what she intended to say.

Better?

If the poster in question had said, "Whoops! Meant to say the ALL priests are pedophiles myth... silly me!" then it would not have happened. However, the poster implied repeatedly that she was standing by her words but that the other thread (which had corruption in the Catholic church as a subject from the first post) was somehow the wrong place to explain. Hence this thread.

There's a difference between 'ill-considered' and 'fuckwitted'...

[Sue U]

Don't mess with the FSM, he is a vengeful god.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

[Sean]

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Are we back to Catholic priests then?

[Sue U]

Considering the subject matter of the thread, I thought it naturally appropriate.

[The Hen]

Fnaar.

[loCAtek]

~Heh, well, it all started with a glib description of atheistic views of catholic priests, which turned into counter-stereotypes; can you counter the type even more to pigeon that hole, and ostracize it, rather than debate it?

[thestoat]

Still no answer, lo?