|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Ignorant Bigot
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
This thread is for verbally abusing Bingo, not sanely discussing real issues. ... I can't believe I just wrote that.
Me neither.
I don't have the time this morning to do something about it, but the issue of prevalence of male-male sexual abuse by priests may be of interest enough to carry over into DH.
But concerning this hostly directive... you cannot seriously expect me to stick around for that. Enjoy, I guess.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Why not? You stuck around for three pages of it already. Dummyhead.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
originally posted by opawim:
quote:
2. The smells-and-bells part of being a RC priest may attract males who are into campiness.
You might be able to argue this line of thought if this were in fact true of Roman Catholicism in Ireland - but it's not. You would be very, very hard pushed to find what some would classify as 'high' or a 'smells n bells' Roman Catholic Church anywhere in Ireland. They do exist, but are as rare as hens teeth. But maybe you still have a point though, cos in Ireland the abusive priests mainly came from evangelical style churches - normally classed a 'low'; so maybe gays are attracted to 'low' churches. Then again, this whole ridiculous line of thought may in fact be more about your own stupid and inane bias and a wonderful demonstration of your own ignorance.
Apparently I gave the impression that I was referring to the situation in Ireland. Hopefully I do not disappoint you too much by explaining that my world is slightly larger. Besides Ireland I'm aware of countries like the U.S.A, Poland, Austria, Canada. I'm even aware of countries like The Philippines where widespread abuse by clergy can still be quite successfully covered up because apparently nobody can be bothered.
But, keeping it closer to (my) home, my whole ridiculous line of thought that you suggest may in fact be more about my own stupid and inane bias and a wonderful demonstration of my own ignorance, is in fact backed up by several clergy in my acquaintance who have "homosexual tendencies", are moderately "camp", and are very good pastors.
While we are at it, and before any more unwarranted assumptions are made about my inane bias and ignorance, I do not associate homosexual tendencies and "campiness" with child abuse and suspect that those who do are only covering their own asses.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
So why did The Vatican arrange for his Eminent Pimpness Bernard Cardinal Law to stay out of prison and is he still in several top-jobs in the Curia?
I do not know enough to comment, really, but I certainly do not assume that the Vatican comes up with one good decision after the next.
It is rather obvious that you are quite selective in what you elect to know enough about to (feel able to) comment.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
opaWim and QJ - despite the flippant attitude of my last hostly post, I'm quite serious about the warning - there will be no more discussion of homosexuality on this thread.
period.
Follow ToujoursDan's example and take it to Dead Horses.
comet
Hellhost
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
OpaWim; re young Bingo; the heat was too strong and he got out of the kitchen..
Once an idiot, always an idiot.
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
OpaWim; re young Bingo; the heat was too strong and he got out of the kitchen..
Once an idiot, always an idiot.
m
I am not at all convinced IngoB merits the title "idiot", or a number of other redeeming titles he has been given, or which have been implied.
[ 26. January 2010, 11:26: Message edited by: opaWim ]
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Spiffy wrote, quote:
Wah! Mean men rape women and there's nothing we can do about it. Wah!
Although it differs on cop shows, in real life cops always take a close look at those who report crimes. This is because so often their the ones committing them. Two groups get singled out whenever a crime goes down. First is the reporter; second is the rent a cop.
And with rape they have double the cause. Nearly half (40%) of all rape reports turn out to be false.
So what Spiffy is whining about is that women are to afraid of being called a slut to see justice done. But they are apparently not to afraid of being called a slut to make up tales to get men they don't like thrown in prison. Hmm.
And who calls the sluts for being raped? No men I know would take a sympathetic view of actual rapists. Of course I was raise to be such a sick bastard that I think no means no.
IMO, the reason rape exists as a major crime is because women don't report it when it happens and when women do report rape it they often lie. Any guilt or shame felt seems to come from women directed at other women.
Of course it's not fair to blame one woman for what a man and other women women do. My heart does go out to actual rape victims. But it's hard to know who those are, isn't it.
Still a good course of action would be for every woman who's actually raped to file a report. It would also be good if women didn't decide they were raped after the fact or because they're angry at their boyfriend or whatever, though that's asking a lot. Then serial rapists would quickly be taken off the streets.
Until that happens, blame me. I don't care if a man is as rich as Donald Trump and as good looking as Brad Pit. No means no and I'll vote to convict the bastard who acts otherwise. But then I'm a twisted pervert because you say so.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
No men I know would take a sympathetic view of actual rapists.
Oh no,of course, no man is sympathetic to an 'actual' rapist - but what is 'actual' rape? Does it mean:- She wasn't "asking for it" by the way she dressed or the way she spoke or the signals she was giving up?
- She didn't say 'yes' first and then change her mind?
- She didn't accept his offer of 'a cup of coffee back at my place'?
- She was stone cold sober?
- She hadn't let him buy her a meal?
I'm not sure I believe the high percentage of reports that "turn out to be false" either. Proven false allegation is pretty rare - I suspect the figure you give is where the woman decides not to prosecute and there could be all sorts of reasons for that: no evidence, her word against his; fear of seeing her attacker in court; shame because she feels she did 'ask for it; pleas from female relative not to ruin the man's life, etc. And then there may be those other instances where the victim wants to prosecute but the authorities feel they don't have enough evidence or the victim won't make a competent witness due to learning difficulties, mental health issues, etc.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I'm not sure I believe the high percentage of reports that "turn out to be false" either. Proven false allegation is pretty rare - I suspect the figure you give is where the woman decides not to prosecute
IIRC, Dumpling previously quoted exactly this statistic from a survey that took "false" to mean "complainant repudiated her statement".
Which means it includes all those women who withdrew accusations that they thought true but not (for whatever reason) worth pursuing, and excludes all those women who stuck to false complaints (whether charges were dropped, or resulted in conviction or acquittal after trial). Since we don't know how many women are in either category, it seems a useless statistic to me. All we can say is that some allegations of rape are true, and some are false, and it's often hard to tell them apart. Most people (though not Dumpling) could make that point without using the word "sluts".
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
urbanbumpkin
Shipmate
# 13505
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Spiffy wrote, quote:
Wah! Mean men rape women and there's nothing we can do about it. Wah!
Although it differs on cop shows, in real life cops always take a close look at those who report crimes. This is because so often their the ones committing them. Two groups get singled out whenever a crime goes down. First is the reporter; second is the rent a cop.
And with rape they have double the cause. Nearly half (40%) of all rape reports turn out to be false.
So what Spiffy is whining about is that women are to afraid of being called a slut to see justice done. But they are apparently not to afraid of being called a slut to make up tales to get men they don't like thrown in prison. Hmm.
And who calls the sluts for being raped? No men I know would take a sympathetic view of actual rapists. Of course I was raise to be such a sick bastard that I think no means no.
IMO, the reason rape exists as a major crime is because women don't report it when it happens and when women do report rape it they often lie. Any guilt or shame felt seems to come from women directed at other women.
Of course it's not fair to blame one woman for what a man and other women women do. My heart does go out to actual rape victims. But it's hard to know who those are, isn't it.
Still a good course of action would be for every woman who's actually raped to file a report. It would also be good if women didn't decide they were raped after the fact or because they're angry at their boyfriend or whatever, though that's asking a lot. Then serial rapists would quickly be taken off the streets.
DJ, where are you getting your stats from? Because I call serious BS on the idea of 40% of women who report rape lying. Have you got any idea of what happens when you report a rape case? First, you have to go tell te whole lot to a policeman. If you have been raped, its mortifying, since it asks hugely detailed questions about every possible part of what happened. I defy quite a lot of women to be able to make up answers to that.
Then you have a physical exam, and a forensic exam of your clothes. If you were making it up, surely there are far better ways to get someone in trouble? They're also looking for any kind of evidence - and no, not only that you had sex, but whether it was forced, how it was done, etc. Normal sex, unless you really are into some interesting things, just isn't going to produce those kinds of results.
At some point, you'll also go through a court proceedure. The defense is LOOKING to discredit you, and they'll do that any way they can. I'm not saying that there aren't false cases of rape reports, but I suspect its very, very few women willing to do that.
What makes me more furious is that it's crap like this that dissuades rape victims from reporting in the first place. Idiot.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
At worst one can say that Catholic clergy is no better in this regard than comparable professionals. Why do you spread FUD?
No. At best you can say that the evidence is thin that Catholic Priests are any better than anyone else. And that despite having vast resources devoted to covering up their paedophillia.
quote:
]The decisions of the bishops covering up the scandal were in some sense worse than the actions of the sex offenders themselves.
And they were entirely in line with the official pronouncements from the Vatican. In May 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to every bishop confirming that they were to cover up any act of sexual misconduct by a priest and handle it internally under threat of excommunication. This meant that every bishop who followed the orders from the Vatican was a de facto member of a paedophile ring (even if they did not personally abuse any children). And every bishop who openly didn't would be excommunicated.
Since then the Roman Catholic Church has made this organiser of a paedophile ring into its head.
quote:
The idea that these abuse structures are somehow special to Catholic clergy is simply false.
Find me a paedophile ring that is as large and influential as every single member of the Roman Catholic Church of rank bishop or higher and you will have a point. The abuse structures are not special to the RCC in motivation, granted. But if there is a larger, more powerful, and more influential paedophile ring on the planet than the one encompassing every single bishop in the Roman Catholic Church, I am unaware of its existance.
And until the Roman Catholic Church takes on its guilt for that and starts defrocking bishops (starting with Ratzinger for organising this) the only reason its hands aren't drenched in blood from this is that the blood can't reach them through the other bodily fluids. Instead the Magisterium is just fine with being a de facto paedophile ring, as demonstrated by its elevation of Ratzinger himself to the papacy.
So yes, the RCC is different from other organisations. Any organisation with pretensions to morality or decency wouldn't make the known organiser of a paedophile ring its head. And especially not after the paedophile ring had been exposed.
I have a lot of respect (and pity) for most lay Roman Catholics. Good people trying to do their best despite being force-fed mountains of horseshit by the Magesterium. And am glad every time they ignore the Vatican. On the other hand, there are some Roman Catholics who appear to not only swallow the bullshit doled out by the Vatican, but to be trying to convince others that it's a gourmet meal. And InGob, you are one of those.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Most reliable stats I can find for rape prosecution are from the BBC website linking into the police/CPS statistics (2006 study).
Insufficient evidence for police 17%
Victim withdrawal before trial 14%
Victim declined to complete initial process 14%
Offender not identified 10%
False allegation 10%
Not enough evidence of assault 4%
Deemed no prospect of conviction 2%
Deemend not in public interest 1%
reason for not proceeding unknown 10%
dropped by CPS 6%
Taken to trial but not able to convict 6%
Convicted 8%
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Yeah, a study which reports "providing an alibi. Dr. Kanin's report describes a woman who got into a bar fight and, fearing that this might prevent her from regaining custody of her children, filed a rape complaint to account for her injuries." is obviously being biased by women who dropped the charges because the crime was too hard to prove.
Studies like this are also unfair because they hold women to a scientific standard. quote:
Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."
In other words the scientific evidence supported women accusing men of rape as having sex with that woman 60% of the time. That assumes none of the women had consensual sex, then claimed rape.
Is it possible that these women were raped, then claimed other men than their rapist were at fault? I suppose it is.
Knowing whether a rape report is true is nearly impossible. But if each rape is reported, serial rapists will quickly become known and prosecuted. When one woman holds back reporting because it's just her word against his, she's helping the rapist to rape other women by denying them the evidence they may need in future trials.
When one man has one woman accusing him of rape, I'll need compelling outside evidence as a juror. When one man has five or six women accusing him, not so much.
QLib, I've know women who "ask for it". They didn't get it from me. "No means no" works both ways. Frustrating for them isn't it?
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
You do realise that 2000 are not clear, so you should have said 20%. Even that 20% is up for interpretation, what of the woman who blames rape on a casual acquaintance because the actual rapist is her father or brother. That woman is in that 20%. Was she raped, yes, just not by who she says she was raped by.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Jengie Jon wrote, quote:
You do realise that 2000 are not clear, so you should have said 20%. Even that 20% is up for interpretation, what of the woman who blames rape on a casual acquaintance because the actual rapist is her father or brother. That woman is in that 20%. Was she raped, yes, just not by who she says she was raped by.
How can men be so mean? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Words fail.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
But then I'm a twisted pervert.
They say the first step is admitting you have a problem.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
I am not at all convinced IngoB merits the title "idiot", or a number of other redeeming titles he has been given, or which have been implied.
IgnoB is not an idiot, but he can be incredibly stupid.
Dumpling Jeff is just a total loss.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
Justinian,
quote:
And they were entirely in line with the official pronouncements from the Vatican. In May 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to every bishop confirming that they were to cover up any act of sexual misconduct by a priest and handle it internally under threat of excommunication. This meant that every bishop who followed the orders from the Vatican was a de facto member of a paedophile ring (even if they did not personally abuse any children). And every bishop who openly didn't would be excommunicated.
Since then the Roman Catholic Church has made this organiser of a paedophile ring into its head.
Isn't it bad enough that the Vatican consistently judged (and I suspect still judges) the reputation of the RCC to be more important than the safety of children from sexual abuse by its personnel?
The facts you supply are correct as far as I know. I even add that the first time -that I'm aware of- JP2 publicly acknowledged that there was a widespread problem, in a Maundy Thursday letter to the priesthood, he commiserated with the priests who had fallen into error, but no word about the victims. Believe me, I still feel the pain and shame that caused in me.
But if you construct a case of deliberate intent to form a pedophile ring aren't you going over the top?
And of course it's a pity you supplied IngoB with knowledge I suspect he doesn't want to possess, by supplying the answer to the question why His Eminent Pimpness Bernard Cardinal Law was rewarded for his criminal behavior as archbishop of Boston: He acted on instructions from higher up. I would have preferred it if IngoB had been allowed the opportunity to show himself honest enough to come up with that answer himself.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse.:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
I am not at all convinced IngoB merits the title "idiot", or a number of other redeeming titles he has been given, or which have been implied.
IgnoB is not an idiot, but he can be incredibly stupid.
Even "incredibly stupid" implies a redeeming factor that he does not merit.
[ 26. January 2010, 19:17: Message edited by: opaWim ]
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
I always assumed Cardinal Law was being "kicked upstairs". He was "promoted" from a position of power (which he was forced to resign) to a titular post with no congregation.
He was not charged with any crimes because he didn't commit any. Lacking ex-post-facto laws to prosecute him under, the public did the next best thing. The took the money "he" had. Sixty five of "his" churches were forced to close due to bankruptcy.
This is not the sort of promotion most people aspire to.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
This is one of those topics where I feel some real trepidation about putting out a comment and then getting slated for it, but here goes.
I spent five years in an RC seminary (college thru 1st theologate), and I knew a lot of seminarians. Working as a layman at both the diocesan and parish level, I knew a lot of priests. So this is my subjective take on the topic, coming from a bit of personal experience.
Many seminarians, including myself when I entered, have had little social contact with girls in high school. There are elements of psychosocial development that just hadn't happened yet for a lot of these guys. The desire to socialize and date is suppressed and sublimated. During the time I was in the sem (66-71) we had the annual "women are dangerous" talk a week before summer break, with warnings to avoid social situations that could be tempting (specifically including, never allow a female to ride in the front seat of your car). Although we were on a university campus, we had rules in place to limit social contact.
I know that alot of these strictures have changed, but I think the products of that system have / had issues with sexuality. I've heard it referred to as a masturbation culture, and I think that is expressive of stunted sexual development and descriptive of some of the prevalent forms of abuse that have happened.
I agree with comments above that the institutional problem goes beyond homosexuality, and not all male/male abuse situations are perpetrated by homosexuals.
The root problem is the enforced discipline of celibacy and less-than-healthy formational institutions (at least during the era when I was in the seminary).
Last thought regarding the proportion of gay RC priests. Although there is a weighted distribution of homosexuals in clerical ministry (not just in the RC world) there is also the effect of some 20,000 resignations from active ministry in the past 30 years or so, the vast majority of which were men who later got married. Gay priests who desire a partnership lack the legally and ecclesially sanctioned alternative of marriage.
My two cents worth.
[ 26. January 2010, 21:26: Message edited by: Lou Poulain ]
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
what of the woman who blames rape on a casual acquaintance because the actual rapist is her father or brother. That woman is in that 20%. Was she raped, yes, just not by who she says she was raped by.
That is a really fucking shit argument, on the grounds that it's saying pretty much exactly the opposite of what you want it to say. A false allegation of rape is a false allegation of rape. Full Stop. It can cause untold damage to the man against whom it is made.
A woman who makes a false allegation of rape is quite simply WRONG, especially if she's actually been raped by someone else. After all, if it's a malicious allegation she's only hurting one person, but if it's to cover up who the true attacker is she's hurting the accused and herself, as well as letting the real perp get away with it.
Would you side with a beaten wife who claims a coworker attacked her? Or a girl being hit by her father telling the police it was her teacher instead?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Dumples, your sig is driving me up the frickin' wall. Read, mark, and inwardly digest.
[ 26. January 2010, 22:38: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I always assumed Cardinal Law was being "kicked upstairs". He was "promoted" from a position of power (which he was forced to resign) to a titular post with no congregation.
He was not charged with any crimes because he didn't commit any.
There were more than enough emails seized to prove that he knowingly transferred abusing priests to fresh hunting grounds after he had received complaints about them.
Enough evidence actually to put him behind bars under existing law.
As to why he was let off the hook, you can have your pick out of several practical reasons. The two most obvious being that having a cardinal in jail is a political and logistical nightmare for the authorities and the availability of a Vatican diplomatic passport to any cardinal.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
'Excluded by forensic DNA testing' does not equal 'woman made malicious accusation'. If someone is raped by someone they don't know, they are reliant on the police to identify the primary suspect. If the police then go after the wrong person, the dna test will exclude that person as it should. Those figures don't explain where the wrong identifications came from and so can't be used for this purpose. People get exonerated by dna testing as primary murder suspects too, presumably the geniuses among us think that's entirely because we've got a bunch of no-good slutty corpses making false accusations.
If you want to discuss false accusations, it might be a good idea not to use stats wrenched out of context to mislead by a disreputable outfit like Fox News.
However this is a new use of Hell. The idea of the board used to be that when other posters were behaving like tossers, they were called down here so people could tell them so in no uncertain terms, in the forlorn hope that they might mend their ways. Now the thread gets hijacked by DJ trying to prove that he is so much more of a tosser than the poster originally summoned, that their offence almost pales into insignificance.
Can we just agree that he has won the prize, and we shall have no other tossers before him? And that if he wants a vanity title of 'Ship's Creep', he can have it. If he gets his sad need for negative attention fully met and catered to, he might just stop acting out and try and get some attention in the normal way - you know by contributing positively to the boards, instead of posting inappropriately creepy stuff which makes people wonder what's wrong with him.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451
|
Posted
Au contraire, Spiff. This one little change makes it just right:
--------------------
Dumpling Jeff: I don't like the idea of someone hearing what I'm thinking.
Inara: No one likes the idea of hearing what you're thinking."
--Firefly
--------------------
Oinkster
"I do a good job and I know how to do this stuff" D. Trump (speaking of the POTUS job)
Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
There's a certain group of people who have taken it upon themselves to call anyone to hell whose sexual morays are at odds with their own. These are apparently the same old ladies as Victorian England had but with a new twist of allowing any perversion they engage in.
Well I call bullshit. Sex doesn't need you to defend it. There are laws on the books that don't need scapegoating feminazis who think that it's ok to blame the wrong man for rape just because the rapist wasn't a popular sex partner.
Not all rapists are like Bill Clinton. They can't all have state police officers who kidnap women, force them into hotel rooms, then cover it up by launching a PR blitz making the woman out to be a liar. Often times they are losers like the date who drooled during dinner or the guy in the van offering candy.
You call Ingo and people like him names because he believes in sex between a caring, committed couple. Well he's right (in principle if not particular facts) and you're the sick ones.
Sex is supposed to be between people who deeply love one another. Just because you've settled for less doesn't give you the right to call those who like "normal" sex names with impunity.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Jeez. Why is always straight guys who can think about nothing but sex? Get a life, Dumples, and stop perving all over the Ship.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Dumpling Jeff, you are one sick mofo, and that is not something I say lightly.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
...sexual morays...
sexual morays?
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Opawim and Rossweisse:
I stand by my comment that Bingo is an idiot. He is obviously not intellectually unintelligent ( i.e not "stupid" per se) but he has the emotional intelligence of an adolescent and it seems that he will stop at nothing to justify the matter of his conversion to the point of uttering idiocies on a public forum. Worse than that he is a monumental bore.
If he keeps on in his usual vein as Apologist Extraordinaire for the Scarlet Whore of Rome and all her appurtenances then he could almost wrest the title of "wisest fool in Christendom"from James VI of Scotland; not even a holy fool at that.
m
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
There are laws on the books that don't need scapegoating feminazis who think that it's ok to blame the wrong man for rape just because the rapist wasn't a popular sex partner.
ding ding ding! ladies and gentleman, we have a Rushophile!
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
Bingo is an idiot.
I wish to make it clear we are not related.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Oh dear, that must be a really big need for negative attention!
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
...Apologist Extraordinaire for the Scarlet Whore of Rome...
So... Who is the Apologist Extraordinaire for the Functionally Drunk Whore of Canterbury?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Oh dear, that must be a really big need for negative attention!
Painfully transparent, isn't it?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
In May 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to every bishop confirming that they were to cover up any act of sexual misconduct by a priest and handle it internally under threat of excommunication.
You really should work on your reading comprehension. If you want to give it another try, the document mentioned is
found here, unless you want to read it in the original Latin. The instruction had to do with the confidentiality of ecclesiastic proceedings against those accused of grave delicts (among which is the sexual abuse of minors). It has nothing to do with enjoining silence with regard to criminal prosecution. In fact, the guideline approved by the Vatican in 2002 specifically calls for the pursuit of criminal prosecution in such cases.
But don't feel bad. You still have the story of all the babies buried underneath the convent.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
In May 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to every bishop confirming that they were to cover up any act of sexual misconduct by a priest and handle it internally under threat of excommunication. This meant that every bishop who followed the orders from the Vatican was a de facto member of a paedophile ring (even if they did not personally abuse any children). And every bishop who openly didn't would be excommunicated.
Since then the Roman Catholic Church has made this organiser of a paedophile ring into its head.
Vicious bullshit, Justinian. This old lie has been debunked so many times since 2001 I’m astonished anyone of good will still trots it out.
The 2001 document clarified an earlier one (Crimen Sollicitationis, 1962) which wasn’t even about child abuse in the first place – it was about the horrible offense of priests abusing the secrecy of the confessional. One such abuse (therein explicitly condemned) would be to solicit sexual favours from the penintent, and the document makes it clear that the abused penitent was under an absolute obligation to report such attempted abuse immediately. If proved against the priest, such behaviour could lead to the immediate and permanent reduction of the priest to the lay state and says NOTHING about not reporting serious offences to the civil authorities.
Similarly, Ratzinger’s 2001 clarification and beefing-up of CS made it more, not less, strenous in its protection of abused persons and once again NEVER even implies that criminal offenses are not to be dealt with by the civil authorities.
Since you accuse the Pope so blithely of being part of a pedophile ring, I expect you’ll be along to tell us what precisely in that 2001 document (chapter and verse please) led you to such a conclusion. If not, an admission of error would do. A public calumny deserves a public apology, don’t you think?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
In May 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to every bishop confirming that they were to cover up any act of sexual misconduct by a priest and handle it internally under threat of excommunication.
You really should work on your reading comprehension. If you want to give it another try, the document mentioned is
found here, unless you want to read it in the original Latin. The instruction had to do with the confidentiality of ecclesiastic proceedings against those accused of grave delicts (among which is the sexual abuse of minors). It has nothing to do with enjoining silence with regard to criminal prosecution.
Believe it or not, I've read it. And what the first document says is that the Roman Catholic Church considers itself above the law of the land, not bound by the law of the land, and that it should keep handling matters itself despite there being a known pattern of it not handling such matters. In short, it's a mandate of a cover-up.
quote:
In fact, the guideline approved by the Vatican in 2002 specifically calls for the pursuit of criminal prosecution in such cases.[/qb]
That would be the one on the 18th of October 2002 when the Vatican objected to the agreement reached with the American authorities and once again were trying to keep some vestige of canon law rather than let their priests be treated the way ordinary human beings were? And that was deliberately written to mandate Roman Catholic Exceptionalism when it came to the law?
quote:
But don't feel bad. You still have the story of all the babies buried underneath the convent.
Would those be the ones caused by Humanae Vitae and the Vatican's truly fucked up views on contraception?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
It must take Dumpling Jeff a while to compose posts so completely cleansed of truth or merit. This seems quite beyond the foggy realms of mere perversion and idiocy, and likely forays from the lower trollosphere.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc wrote, quote:
I’m astonished anyone of good will still trots it out.
I think you may have made a wrong assumption here.
Does that count as a "I thought this was a christian web site"?
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Vicious bullshit, Justinian. This old lie has been debunked so many times since 2001 I’m astonished anyone of good will still trots it out.
The 2001 document clarified an earlier one (Crimen Sollicitationis, 1962) which wasn’t even about child abuse in the first place – it was about the horrible offense of priests abusing the secrecy of the confessional. One such abuse (therein explicitly condemned) would be to solicit sexual favours from the penintent, and the document makes it clear that the abused penitent was under an absolute obligation to report such attempted abuse immediately.
And report it to the Roman Catholic authorities rather than the secular ones.
quote:
If proved against the priest, such behaviour could lead to the immediate and permanent reduction of the priest to the lay state and says NOTHING about not reporting serious offences to the civil authorities.
No. It says who the authorities to report it to are. And that they are reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Which makes it an internal matter for the Roman Catholic Church. And "Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret." Which means that those within the church who could help the civil case the most are banned from doing so.
quote:
Similarly, Ratzinger’s 2001 clarification and beefing-up of CS made it more, not less, strenous in its protection of abused persons and once again NEVER even implies that criminal offenses are not to be dealt with by the civil authorities.
Again, it says the matters are reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Under the Pontifical Secret.
quote:
Since you accuse the Pope so blithely of being part of a pedophile ring, I expect you’ll be along to tell us what precisely in that 2001 document (chapter and verse please) led you to such a conclusion. If not, an admission of error would do. A public calumny deserves a public apology, don’t you think?
I believe I have said what led me to that conclusion above. It was an elegant move - have it reported internally, and bind anyone in the church hierarchy who could help with a civil investigation under the Pontifical Secret. The Roman Catholic Church's back was against the wall at the time.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
...sexual morays...
Soles needing 'eeling, perhaps?
a) IngoB is certainly not an idiot, that's just calling someone names because you disagree with him. Generally his arguments are cogent and informed. The fact that we disagree on most things that he wades into is neither here nor there. I disagreed with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan on lots of things as well but it doesn't make them idiots.
b) Justinian, I think you should change your name as you do the real Justinian a bad service. Mindless invective stemming from blind prejudice is unseemly. How about changing to Ignorant Bigot, it would be much more appropriate?
[ 27. January 2010, 14:58: Message edited by: Fuzzipeg ]
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
IngoB is certainly not an idiot, that's just calling someone names because you disagree with him.
Uh, yeah, that's why this is the Hell board and not Dead Horses. We like to call people names. Stupidhead.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Justinian, AIUI, cases of this sort are subject to the Pontifical Secret but the events in question are not. So if a Catholic Priest offers you a good seeing to instead of the usual Three Hail Marys and two Our Fathers the resulting trial will be covered by the Pontifical Secret but there is nothing stopping you bringing the matter to the attention of Plod if you are a minor.
I'm not an unqualified admirer of the Catholic Church and I don't think that even the most Considerably More Magisterial Than Yow commentator would regard their handing of the child abuse scandal as their finest hour but, really, does anyone seriously think that in a middle of an ess-eaitch-one-tee storm of this nature the head of the CDF would forbid everyone from co-operating with the civil authority on pain of excommunication?
[ 27. January 2010, 15:02: Message edited by: Gildas ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Justinian, AIUI, cases of this sort are subject to the Pontifical Secret but the events in question are not. So if a Catholic Priest offers you a good seeing to instead of the usual Three Hail Marys and two Our Fathers the resulting trial will be covered by the Pontifical Secret but there is nothing stopping you bringing the matter to the attention of Plod if you are a minor.
Meaning that it's the investigating authorities who are banned from helping the secular authorities due to the Papal Seal. There's nothing directly preventing the victim and the victim's family doing so. There would have been Catholic priests strung up from pullpits if they'd tried that.
As it is, there are two possible cases:
1: The victim's family doesn't trust the RCC and turns things straight over to the secular authorities. The RCC can't do much about that and any attempt to directly interfere would be politically impossible at the time.
2: Despite the problems, the victim's family trusts the RCC to do something. They take it through the RCC's own chanels. Which are set up to slow things down (meaning that any secular investigation is much harder due to the ground being cold), produce the most charitable result possible for the priest, and to otherwise protect the reputation of the Roman Catholic Church. In short to cover up and throw as much of a smokescreen as possible while appearing to be doing something.
Putting the whole thing under the auspices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and under the Papal Seal is a wonderful way of doing this latter alternative. While appearing to be doing something positive so fewer people depart for category 1 or leave the RCC entirely.
quote:
but, really, does anyone seriously think that in a middle of an ess-eaitch-one-tee storm of this nature the head of the CDF would forbid everyone from co-operating with the civil authority on pain of excommunication?
They'd do whatever they could to do so that wouldn't make it screamingly obvious that that was what they were doing. They couldn't gag the victim/victim's family. But effectively could anyone investigating from their side.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I'm going to suggest the likelihood that both the protestant ministry and the Catholic priesthood tend to attract a disproportionate number of men with problems in psychosexual integration, by which I DO NOT mean homosexuality, but rather an incapacity for relationships that combine emotional and sexual intimacy with age-appropriate object choice (IOW, not with juveniles). A requirement for celibacy merely magnifies the likelihood of psychosexual maladaptation. If the celibacy requirement is maintained and homosexually-oriented men are barred from the priesthood, the Roman Catholic Church is going to be left with very few candidates for the priesthood, at least in the West; even more so when you screen out all the aspirants who have various types of character pathology, irrespective of sexual orientation.
[ 27. January 2010, 16:39: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And the papers IngoB referred to to support his assertion that teachers are more likely to be involved in sexual abuse show no such thing.
Well, one of the authors of these studies, Prof. Shakeshaft, seems to think otherwise. See here, which is a free copy of an article in Education Week.
I was going to reply with some such appropriate phrase as "well she would say the wouldn't she". But then I read the article you link to and it not only doesn't say anything about the relative numbers of child abusers between clergy and teachers, it doesn't make any assertions about the numbers of teachers involved AT ALL.
You obviously haven't read the article, just scanned it for a line that when quoted out of context could be used to mislead people into thinking you knew what you were talking about. Maybe you have learned how to debate from Myrrh.
The line is:
quote:
Those figures suggest that "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests,"contended Ms. Shakeshaft, who is a professor of educational administration at Hofstra, in Hempstead, N.Y.
What that doesn't say is that she is not talking about numbers of teachers but numbers of students. And she is not talking about proportions but about absolute numbers. She is (or maybe the reporter talking about her) is claiming she is being she thinks about 100 times as many people have been abused by teachers as by priests.
And she only says that her literature search (and it was a literature search, not original research) "suggests" that the problem is 100 times greater in education. Weasel words, but she must use them to stay ion the right side of her college's ethics committee because of course the studies she is talking about are not claiming like for like. She is comparing on the one hand people who report serious sexual abuse from priests, such as rape, and on the other hand people who report much wider categories of "sexual misconduct" from teachers.
But even if her claim is true, so what?
I think there are about 40,000 Roman Catholic priests in the USA.
The largest teacher's union, the National Education Association, has over three million members. There are millions teachers who are not members.
So there ARE OVER A HUNDRED TIMES AS MANY TEACHERS AS CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN AMERICA. So if teachers and priests were equally likely to abuse children YOU WOULD EXPECT A HUNDRED TIMES AS MANY REPORTS OF IT.
And, what's more, kids typically spend maybe 20-30 hours a week with their teachers. Very few spend more than an hour or so in the presence of a priest. So if the number of incidents abuse per abuser was the same (IYSWIM) you would have to infer that the rate of incidents was much greater from priests than from teachers. (Remember she is NOT just talking about stuff that goes on behind closed doors - or not with teachers anyway)
And, what's more, people pass through the hands of many teachers in their school career. I'd guess I was taught by about 40-50 teachers in the two schools I went to, anyone who moves home a lot will see far more. Few kids get to go to fifty churches during their childhood. So a comparitively small number of abusive teachers would deal with many, many kids in their career, far more than most priests would (and the few priests who did would probably be teachers themselves (hey, maybe those figures fro teachers are being skewed by a few bent priests?)
Anyway the reports quoted by Dr Shakeshaft (it still sounds like a weird made-up name) do NOT say anything about how many teachers are abusers, or even how many teachers are guilty of her more generalised "sexual misconduct". So they do NOT help us know if teachers are better or worse than priests. She doesn't even claim that they do - she is making a demand for more research money.
Look, I know you are an engineer of some sort and so maybe haven't had a decent education in statistics. (I know what its like - I'm a biologist - we are crap at all maths except statistics). And maybe you are used to scholarly papers being full of deterministic equations and actual data. Unlike this one.
So lets use an analogy without the emotional blinders of children, sex, violence, and religion (no wonder this topic has legs, it hits all the buttons)
Say you wanted to know if car drivers were more or less likely to be hurt in an accident than motorbike riders. And someone told you that in 2002 approximately 175,000 occupants of cars were seriously injured in Britain, but only 3,000 motorcyclists were killed - so that is evidence that driving is about 60 times more dangerous than riding. You wouldn't fall for that for a moment. But that is exactly what you have done with Ms Shakewhatever's papers.
Hey! I pass the Comet test! I verbally abuse BingoBee BY rationally discussing real issues. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 27. January 2010, 17:52: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
No worries, Ken, someone will be along shortly to mansplain to you why you're wrong. Since Ingo isn't reading this (in theory), it'll probably be Dumples.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
