HEADLINES!!!!!!

93 replies [Last post]
troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

A thread for comments on current events (without having to make a whole new thread for each item to be commented on).
Mostly I wanted to say BOOO to the Catlick Church (LA Archdioces) for paying out $660,000,000 to claiments that the priest had no underwear uner his vestments!
What? You have no sense of hunor whatsoever? You're the church, but still, you couldn't have tacked on a measly $6,000,000 and made the settlement $666 Million? Namby Pambys! You'd have freaked out people for hundreds of years to come (assuming there ARE hundreds of years to come and assuming that religion lasts to the end of this century AT ALL)!
Secondly, $1,000,000 because some creep felt you up or played hide the salami? Chances are you were a willing participant and now you're getting $1million!
Does this mean that municipalities should be required to pay everyone that gets raped in prison $1MM?
"It's a secret I've kept all of my life... But NOW I'm willing to take all your scorn and ridicule, 'cause 'I'm rich Beyatch!'"
If ever there was a "Get over yourself" victim class, this is it!
Do you know what they do to little girls in some other countries? Yeah! They cut it ALL off! No anesthetic, with a dull knife or anything handy, like the top off a tin can, while their own mother is holding them down!
A little Clerical nookie, while I'm happy it never happened to me, it ain't the end of the world! It ain't worth $1MM plus!
OTOH, Maybe I should take out an ad in the Catholic newsthingies they hand out in the LA churches, I hear there are a whole lot of new millionaires in the pews! 

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Whomit,
This is one of the few posts that have ever bothered me.  I hope that you aren't serious.  Should I assume that you don't have children?  Children were getting molested.  It will screw many of them up for life.   The Church knew about it and let it continue. 
The Church should pay.  All participants and all who covered up should be shot.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

New lows for the boards. Whomit, this post has to be your idea of a joke, please tell me it is.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

It's tongue in cheek but it's serious as well! These people are only screwed up for life if they let themselves be, and there are thousands and thousands of things that happen in a life that can screw it up, not least of which being forced by your parents to be an altar boy (BTW my two daughters were Altar servers, and they learned quickly that the director of altar servers preferred there to be altar BOYS v girls.)
Sex among men and boys is not globally unusual nor historically so, and the more "religious" the community, the less rare it is. This country has to grow up and face the reality of reality, and then we can try and should absolutely strive to change it. Picking on Catholic Priests is scape-goating and it was an orchestrated event, timed to discredit the Catholics right at the time when they do their big "Come Home to Church" push that they do each Easter Time (this was several years ago now). I remember saying to my priest that this was a case of "friends" betraying us (I never liked it when the Catholics threw in their lot with the Fundies).
Once the green "blood" was in the water then people who had no real problems all of a sudden remembered that they were abused by such and such a priest, and it has ruined their lives. Were some? Were many? I believe so. But I don't believe that it is worth $1MM+ per case.
Meanwhile, no comment on the practice of Female Genital Mutilation? Interesting.
There's no good segue into this so I'll just be crass...
Did it strike anybody’s funny bone that a battery manufacturer is buying the maker of "Feminine products"?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

"The Church should pay.  All participants and all who covered up should be shot."
Spoken like a true "Christian".

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

These people are only screwed up for life if they let themselves be,
I hope that this is completely tounge in cheek.  I couldn't imagine someone being molested and not having it screw them up for life to some degree.
Sex among men and boys ...
It's not sex.  It's rape.  
Picking on Catholic Priests is scape-goating
What's wrong with you??!! Priests aren't being scape goated.   How does a pedophile get scape goated?
But I don't believe that it is worth $1MM+ per case.
How much is it worth to be the victim of a pedophile in a position of power?  Does this mean that if your neighbor was a rich pedophile, you'd let them have their way with your son for some dollar figure below $1,000,000?

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

"The Church should pay.  All participants and all who covered up should be shot."
Spoken like a true "Christian".
Pedophilia is not a forgiveable crime.   Covering up Pedophilia is not a forgiveable crime.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

your tongue isnt in your cheek. Its in your ass. This is the most warped thing I have ever seen on any board, let alone one that supposedly caters to professionals. (although we've probably all disproved that theory by now.) You must have been a nazi in your former life. or a child molester.

AllREIT's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-12-16

anonymous wrote:These people are only screwed up for life if they let themselves be,
I hope that this is completely tounge in cheek.  I couldn't
imagine someone being molested and not having it screw them up for life
to some degree.

IMHO it's the huge fuss about
it that causes most of the damage. Not necessairly the events
themselves. How much damage any sexual "abuse" is going to cause is
will be somewhat dependant on the framework in which it takes place.
(E.g strength of family relationships, self-perception, personality,
context etc).

IMHO Whomit is right, these huge cash settlements are
attracting alot of people out of the woodwork. Probably many people who
would not have responded to just an offer of say free psychotherapy.

Amazing the harms that money can cure. A truely catholic (universal) remedy.

AllREIT's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-12-16

pratoman wrote:your tongue isnt in your cheek. Its in your ass.
This is the most warped thing I have ever seen on any board, let alone
one that supposedly caters to professionals. (although we've probably
all disproved that theory by now.) You must have been a nazi in your former life. or a child molester.

Whomit wins by application of Godwin's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

"I couldn't imagine someone being molested and not having it screw them up for life to some degree."
The degree is dependent on other factors, not least of which is the amount of shame they are forced to have due to a society which views sex as dirty in the first place. Sex is what it is, everything else is what is made of it. Sex with one's spouse is not the same as sex with the same person before they were your spouse, why? Because the circumstances around the act have changed, the taboo has been lifted, the edges of newness and apprehension have been dulled by time. But the act itself is still basically the same.
We're so homophobic in this country and so sexophobic in general that little boys who were (in some/many cases) curious participants in something that has been going on for thousands of years are then forced to internalize the shame of what they have done (not to say that there wasn't something done to them). If there weren't the "Scarlet Letter" there wouldn't be the shame. They can't speak of it because it is too dirty
Please, don't get me wrong, I don't think that the priests are innocent in this, I feel that the Church must realize the many issues that celibate priesthood causes. But then the same thing is also said about countries that put out girls who do not prove their virginity on the wedding night by producing a bloody sheet! Not only is this stupid for the girl but it forces boys into "alternate arrangements". That's just a reality that is a fact around the world, this is where we should strive to evolve beyond (and this "crisis" proves that we have not done so).
As to this being a depraved discussion and one not befitting a board of professionals, it is absolutely my job to look at the market differently from the crowd and determine where the opportunities lie. This is not a skill that one turns on and off, it is a habit one acquires from a lifetime of detached cynicism/skepticism
Meanwhile, whenever there are $660MM involved, it's going to turn a professional broker's head.
Oh, and as to the "person of authority" having done this, I'd also say "Good!" it teaches the fellow to distrust authority from a young age, that's a good thing.
Along these line are the plethora of "Teacher humps student" stories that hit the news with boring regularity these days. It's given a "Man Bites Dog" feel when it is the female teacher jumping the young bone. When I was in high school (best 7 years of my life) there was a old man teacher who married a student (there was also a guy teacher who cruised after school but most of us were icked out just enough by him not to get into the car, even though we didn't know quite what was going on) hey, it happens.
Interestingly, in this saga, the husband gunned down the boyfriend. Was a time, as I seem to recall, that if a man came home and found his wife in bed, he had the duty to kill the man! Wasn't a jury in the world would convict! It's one of the things that kept down the numbers of cheatin wives!
I'm not saying that it's right, I'm just saying... Meanwhile I wouldn't be surprised if this guy's lawyer doesn't go for the "Pre-emptive Strike" defense! "Your honor, my client has seen reports of the Long Island Lolita Amy Fischer, shooting Mary Jo Buttafucco, of Lorena Bobbit slicing off her husbands body and takin his dick for a ride, of Jean Smart who killed her husband, of the other teacher who hired her boyfriend Beavis, and his buddy Butthead to kill her husband and several other like cases. My client was afeared for his life when he decided the best thing to do was to kill this potential murderer before he had amassed the weapons of solo-destruction that he was sure he was in the process of doing!"

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

"Sex"  "Homophobic" "Sexophobic"
This isn't about sex and homophobia.  These are kids.  Kids can't consent.  It's called rape. 
If this was about sex, the scandal would be about priests sleeping with prostitutes and adult parishoners.  Instead we're talking pedophilia...and you're trying to minimize it.
Yes, money will bring some claimants out of the woodwork.   To a large degree, there simply was no reason for many of these claimants to come out about it otherwise.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

AllREIT wrote: pratoman wrote:
your tongue isnt in your cheek. Its in your ass. This is the most warped thing I have ever seen on any board, let alone one that supposedly caters to professionals. (although we've probably all disproved that theory by now.) You must have been a nazi in your former life. or a child molester.
Whomit wins by application of Godwin's law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Link doenst work, please explain.
Whomit cannot win, his thought process is that of a degenerate. You can win a debate, and still be morally depraved.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

"Kids can't consent.  It's called rape."
These are legal and moral constructs, not absolutes. (Not one's that I disagree with, but still, they are the sorts of words that push the victims into the shadows. Especially, remeber that we are not talking about victims of today we're talking about victims from the past who had these affairs years ago. before we were as enlightened as we are today.)
I'm not minimizing pedophilia, and yet I'm tired of the mainstream media maximizing it too.
If you are so worked up about rape, then why didn't you pick up the strand about the prison system. To my mind it is barbaric that we have a system where the expectation is that when men are sent to prison they will be raped by the other inmates. It's embarassing that we allow such a system to exist within our society. and yet it does, and so we should ask ourselves why.
One reason why is our attitude towards sex in the first place. men rape men in prison, not for the sexual satisfaction but for the humiliation that it puts on the victim, and why should he be humiliated? Because sex is shameful and having sex done to you shows you to be a weakling physically and morally. Granted these are sociopaths that we're dealing with here, but what looking at a sociopath does is strip away the veneer of society's rules.
Pratoman,
Look it up. You know how to use Google? You know how to use Wikipedia? Don't expect everything to be spoon fed to you, otherwise you'll never be smart enough to make you own decisions. 

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

 These are legal and moral constructs, not absolutes.
If we are talking about an authority figure and a child, we are talking about absolutes.
You are absolutely minimizing it.    I'm not worked up about rape.  I'm worked up about you because you think that a Priest molesting a child isn't that big of a deal because it's just that society puts a stigma on it. 
So with your whole prison analogy, what are you trying to say?  The guilty priests molested children, not because of the sexual enjoyment that these sick pedophiles received, but because they wanted to show the children that they were weaker physically and morally.  Obviously, that is not what you are trying to say, but you are trying to minimalize it by bringing prison rape into the equation.
Every stinkin' time that you bring up garbage like "attitudes towards sex", you are trying to minimalize it.  I'm surprised that you don't start talking about pedophilia as "love making". 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29
troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Joe,<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
What about the guy who was busted for having a single joint in NYS back under the Rockefeller Drug law days? Did he deserve to get gang raped in prison for his "barbaric" transgression?
Anonymous,
Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the word "absolute." An absolute is true in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />ALL circumstances, what you are describing is a absolute belief held by you to be always true in all circumstances.  You are entitled to that core belief (and I don't disagree with it, particularly) but there is a difference between your belief and reality. When you impose your belief on that reality you are being dogmatic. Sometimes, this dogma helps to lift the cultural evolution of the species, and I applaud that.
But, it is important to have some basis upon which this dogma is founded. And in order for that to be there needs to be a reconciliation of all the factors. Are we against rape? Why? How do we define rape? Are we more against rape committed on some people than we are on others? What about the concept of "statutory rape"? Do we nationalize the age of consent? How do we determine the age of consent, isn't it different for each person?
These aren't meant to be rhetorical questions, do you have a valid reason to be opposed to rape (I do and am), do you? And does that valid reason get "unabsoluted" in other cases of rape?
If I were you I'd be saying, "It's axiomatic that rape is wrong!" and I'd have to agree, except that the word "rape" itself can be stretched beyond the axiom, and I'm not sure that it hasn't been in this particular case.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

If I were you I'd be saying,...
No.  If you were me, you would be saying, "Priests should not molest little boys (or girls).   This is an absolute."
Your posts are giving me a slimy feeling.  We're not talking about a boss and his secretary.   We're talking about kids and priests.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Ok well then this is obviously beyond your abilities.
Let's talk about a different headline then, your choice.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

The ability to rationalize child molestation is absolutely beyond my abilities.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whatever.
Did you see the article about the new "Creationist" book that has been mass mailed to scientists and museums around the world?
Apparently it is Islamic fundies that are after Darwin this time.
I'd like to get one of these books, it apparently is quite the stunner in terms of its production values.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29
troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
"Kids can't consent.  It's called rape."
These are legal and moral constructs, not absolutes. (Not one's that I disagree with, but still, they are the sorts of words that push the victims into the shadows. Especially, remeber that we are not talking about victims of today we're talking about victims from the past who had these affairs years ago. before we were as enlightened as we are today.)
I'm not minimizing pedophilia, and yet I'm tired of the mainstream media maximizing it too.
If you are so worked up about rape, then why didn't you pick up the strand about the prison system. To my mind it is barbaric that we have a system where the expectation is that when men are sent to prison they will be raped by the other inmates. It's embarassing that we allow such a system to exist within our society. and yet it does, and so we should ask ourselves why.
One reason why is our attitude towards sex in the first place. men rape men in prison, not for the sexual satisfaction but for the humiliation that it puts on the victim, and why should he be humiliated? Because sex is shameful and having sex done to you shows you to be a weakling physically and morally. Granted these are sociopaths that we're dealing with here, but what looking at a sociopath does is strip away the veneer of society's rules.
Pratoman,
Look it up. You know how to use Google? You know how to use Wikipedia? Don't expect everything to be spoon fed to you, otherwise you'll never be smart enough to make you own decisions. 

If I was that interested, I would look it up, but I am not. Trust me, spoon fed, I dont need to be. i\I've learned enough in my 50 plus years without being spoonfed. Just never ran across Godwins law, so I guess I should apologize for being a "simpleton".
Seriously tho, I just cant comprehend your point of view. Saying the media is "maximizing' the issue of priests screwing with little boys, implies to me that you are saying they are making more of the issue than they should. I just dont see how thats possible.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

"Seriously tho, I just cant comprehend your point of view. Saying the media is "maximizing' the issue of priests screwing with little boys, implies to me that you are saying they are making more of the issue than they should. I just dont see how thats possible."<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
As I've said to others, if we have to confine our discussions to what you can "comprehend" we're going to be very limited as to what we can discuss.
And this goes out to Primary too (Just so you know, I do not engage in PM discussions, I prefer to have what I say in the public record where I can defend it) I do not advocate for either side of this "debate". This having been said, let me lay out a few related opinions:
1. The Catholic Church was the target of a smear campaign that was timed to damage their efforts to connect with lapsed Catholics (which are the fertile field that protestant and "splinter" churches, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, till for membership.) For fundamentalist, evangelical Christian churches, the Catholics are on par with Jews in terms of their sac religiosity, and abolishing the Papists has been a goal for decades.
2. Evidence of the coordination of this effort was offered when the Pope (John Paul) had a meeting of Bishops on this issue (Priests diddling little boys). When the meeting was over the headline on papers across and down the nation was exactly the same "No Zero Tolerance Policy". Zero tolerance policy is anathema to the entire Christian dogma, Forgiveness is the essence of the Christ's message. "He died for your sins!", "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "God is Love." these ring any bells?
3. It is a well established fact that throughout history, it has been considered, perhaps not great but commonplace, that some men make do with little boys. I'm not in favor of this, I'm not in favor of anyone forcibly making do with anyone (except them self, if they so desire) but then I don't live in those earlier times I live in the today. The Church does not live in the today. This is exactly why people gravitate towards churches in general, because they represent a much more absolutist mindset. The Catholic Church is far behind the modern times (and still miles ahead of so many other religions) in that they still live in a time when it would have been seen as a blessing upon the family that one of their boys would be taken into the order and perhaps one day become a priest or a monk.
The Catholic Church didn't translate to the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />USA in the ways that its traditions had evolved in Europe. Throughout the history of Europe and the Church there were ghettoes from which people were willing to sell their lives to the church for the chance at a full belly and a relatively disease free living environment. The Church and the Military were just about the only paths to prosperity and respectability available. In America, this was never the case. There was land aplenty and starvation was a thing of the past for most (city dwellers being the exception, once cities were established) and the Catholics weren't really among the first in North America. However, in Central America, there were lots of "converts".
Point here being that the level of commitment to the Catholic Church has not been the same as throughout its history. And what was seen as part of the job in the church's past is not seen that way anymore. The Church has been slow to adapt to this idea, and it is passed time that it does. But therein lies a conundrum, we want the Church to both change and stay the same.
4. The notion that children will be scarred for life is overblown. The pendulum has swung from pre child labor laws to full citizenship for the unborn. We cloak far too many pieces of stoopid legislation in "Think about the children" rhetoric and rationalization. Will the child be irreparably harmed? In my opinion, it depends on the who what when where how and why of the abuse. If a father repeated rapes his daughter from the age of six on, with a mother who does nothing to stop the abuse... Yes, that girl will carry scars of her childhood throughout her adult life. This is not to say that she is irredeemably useless to society, and that she can't live a full life, just that she'll do it with scars.
Everyday we see the handicapped overcome their limitations (isn't there a guy with false legs running for a spot on the Olympic team?) But for some reason we're to think that these people who carry these scars are somehow less able to overcome. This is what I'm saying about the self-creation of the victim class.
5. The media has made a major issue of under aged sex. Look at the "To catch A Predator" series on Dateline.
The issue here is "what is under aged?" In some states the age of consent is 14 (I believe there is still one at age 12). A girl can get married at 14. Does this mean that every 12 year old girl is ready to be married? no, not at all in the slightest. However, I do remember that when I was in sixth grade, Mary Baxter was already going all the way on dates... Not with me, but what did I know from all the way anyway? Karen somthingoranother's sister told me to go for it with Karen, she wouldn't say no! I'm sure you all have like/same stories.
I'm not in favor of customs around the planet where old men take teenaged brides, and I'm not in favor of NAMBLA. I'm not in favor of guys going to Bangkok and having sex with little girls/boys/ducks and sheep. I'm not in favor of child porn. I'm not in favor of rape in any form (including prison rape). But I'm also not in favor of witch hunting the Catholic Church and I'm not in favor of the puritanical based attitudes towards sex that this country unequally applies.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29
anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

With every post, you try to minimalize the issue.  This isn't a 13 year old girl getting felt up by a 13 year old boy.  This is a 40 year old man using is position of authority and his religious stature to molest a 13 year old boy. 
The Church doesn't need to have zero tolerance.  It would be perfectly acceptable to forgive the priest and then call the police and then let all parishoners know so that they could keep their children away.  Instead, the church didn't just forgive, they covered it up and let more children get abused.  The church knew that reassigned priests would keep molesting.  The Church cared more about its reputation than its parishoners. 
Personally, I think that pedophilia is not a forgiveable crime.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

anonymous wrote:
With every post, you try to minimalize the issue.  This isn't a 13 year old girl getting felt up by a 13 year old boy.  This is a 40 year old man using is position of authority and his religious stature to molest a 13 year old boy. 
The Church doesn't need to have zero tolerance.  It would be perfectly acceptable to forgive the priest and then call the police and then let all parishoners know so that they could keep their children away.  Instead, the church didn't just forgive, they covered it up and let more children get abused.  The church knew that reassigned priests would keep molesting.  The Church cared more about its reputation than its parishoners. 
Personally, I think that pedophilia is not a forgiveable crime.

amen!

farotech's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-01-05

Whomit diddles little boys.

AllREIT's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-12-16

farotech wrote:Whomit diddles little boys.

Ya'll act like that's a bad thing.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

The point is that every newspaper had the same headline. A headline that is not what one would have expected from the VAtican in the first place, so what are the chances that they all had the same reaction if they were independently written? Answer: Zero chance.
Anon,
What is "Minimalize" your word of the week? You have to say it 107 times so that it sticks in your memory?
It's guys like you that require us to come up with words like "Ginormous" because you overuse the the extreme so that the extreme doesn't seem extreme enough anymore. (Kinda like how no one is "Prejudice" anymore, they are only "racist".)
Do I want to say that this is less of a story than you think that it is? Yes, because you think it is a ginormous story and I have shown in numerous ways why it is not so. I don't think that it is nothing, but then I don't think it is as big a deal as others do. I think people ought to exorcize themselves of the "Cult of the Child". And stop thinking that sex is such a sinful thing that no child could ever recover from premature sex.
I've made my position as clear as I can, if you are serious about discussing this then refute what I have said , not by just spouting dogma, but by showing that you understand what has been said and then saying why it is wrong.
And Farotech, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who uses a bogus company meant to defraud investors in a movie that highlights the absolute worst of this industry as their handle deserves to be summarilly ignored. Grow up, then we'll talk. 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Joedabrkr said:
"Ironic statement, really, considering that the modus operandi of the Catholic Church for centuries has been one of "Zero Tolerance" on many issues....."
Really? Name 10.
Throughout its 1400 year history, I'm sure you can find ten instances. And yet I can name hundreds of exceptions that the church makes for the sake of convenience. 

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

And stop thinking that sex is such a sinful thing that no child could ever recover from premature sex.
I've made my position as clear as I can, if you are serious about discussing this then refute what I have said , not by just spouting dogma, but by showing that you understand what has been said and then saying why it is wrong.
You have made your position perfectly clear:
Whomitmayconcern's positon: sexual molestation of children by priests is just "premature sex" and although is not a good thing, it is only society that makes this a bad thing.  The priests deserve to be forgiven.   The payment to the children who got to enjoy the love making was an undeserved bonus. 
Anonymous' Position: sexual molestation of children by priests is a terrible awful crime.   They belong in jail for the rest of their lives as does anybody who was involved with covering up the crime and allowing these priests to have further access to children.  The payment to the children who were raped will never make up for what happened to them.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

If that's the best that you can comprehend, then fine, there's no sense in continuing on, as I observed yesterday.
Now why don't you pick a headline that you would like to discuss and we'll move forward.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Am I misrepresenting your viewpoint?  Does anyone think that I'm misrepresenting Whomit's viewpoint?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

What do you want Anonymous? Do you want to fight me? Is that what you want. You think you got the ballz to take me on?
I won't waste my time, getting into a battle of intellects with you is like competing in the special olympics. You're a horsefly in the stable, yes you can be annoying, but you are not a real threat.
I say this after having tried patiently to explain to you several times why I take the position I do and you've shown not only no more understanding but indeed less in that you have let your emotions cloud what little perception you may have been capable  of expanding upon. I gave you chance after chance after chance to come up with anything other than your simple opinion and you did not (whether because you would not or could not I don't really care, either way you prove yourself to be devoid of original, independent thought processes).
So go wrap yourself in your self righteousness and tell all your friends that you took on Whomitmayconcer and you "beat him". Whatever, I know how shallow your brain really is, even if you don't. 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29
anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Whomit, your ability to back up your viewpoints about why child molestation isn't so bad, speaks much greater volumes about your character than it does about your intellect.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

ok, this is degenerating into a Michael Vick dogfight, so we need to change the subject. Lets just say its  three to one in favor of the opinion that child molestation by anyone, let alone men of the cloth, is the worst kind of crime imaginable to man, short of mass genocide.
New subject - U.S. troops caught this dog they say is the head of Al Queda in Iraq, or something like that. Does anyone have the feeling that I do, that we are going to be almost nice to the guy, relatively speaking, so that we are in accord with the rules of war, or Geneva Convention, or something (never claimed to be the most educated guy on the boards). I submit to this forum, that we need to throw that mentaility out the window. The only value there is in getting one of these higher ups, other than the media value, is the info we get from him, which no doubt he will not give in a forthcoming or cooperative way. And we have to treat him with respect, while his guys kill our guys. I think we need to start out with a lit cigarette butt put out on his face (close to his eye, maybe), and then tell him its the last time we'll treat him that nicely, if he doesnt lead us to more of his kind, in a big picture way.
What say you, good citizens, and child molester defenders!@

pretzelhead's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-23

Whomit, your argument is ludicrous.  A child being used to fulfill some sick asshole's pleasure is absolutely being raped.  This type of behavior should land ALL of these fkwads in prison forever.  Let them get a taste of their own medicine. 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

"Your attempts to apply moral relativism to justify child molestation(and the efforts to conceal it) do not make you a mental giant. "
No, they don't and I never claimed that they do, I see you've not improved in your reading comprehension and more than in your ability to back up anything that you have said. Do you have 10 examples of the Church's Zero Tolerance policy? I didn't think so.
Nor did I ever try to "justify child molesation", not once. It is the sign of a weak mind that one can only see black or white. That I disagree with the claims of the molested does not mean that I justify the actions of the molestor. Just because "A" does not equal "B" does not mean that "A" equals "Not B" I wish you could show that you understand that.
"They just show that you have questionable morals."
All morals should be questioned all of the time that's how we evolve as a society.
Please Joe, do me this one little favor, when you post to me cram the emoticons! I don't need them and you misuse them! When you say I have questionable morals and then a winkie smiley face doesn't mask the intent of your sentence. It's like Rickie Bobby saying "With all due respect...", and then saying something outrageously disrespectful. Do you want me to think that you are as smart as Rickie Bobby?
"Horrors" My best friend's mother went into the hospital when he was 13 and stayed ther until she died when he was 19. He has never recovered from this horrible experience. A nine year old boy that goes to school with my daughter was in the car with his father when his father pushed him down onto the seat and drove under a semi that had cut infront of him, slowly killing the father while the son heard the cries and groans of his dying father who just saved his life. My grandfather died when my father was nine years old, leaving my father as the "man of the family" with six younger brothers and sisters, long before there was anything like "Public assistance". When I was growing up, if I did something wrong, I got the living sh*t beat out of me (can't do that today).
My friend with the mother, he lives as a victim, he loves the role (even though he has no expressed idea that this is true.) In truth, it's killing him, he only feels good when he feels bad and so he encourages himself to be sick.
The boy with the car, he'll be expected to grow up and get past this.
My father, aside from the fact that he had no real idea how to raise sons, went on to be a solid citizen who has contributed greatly to his community.
Me? I harbor lots of ill will towards my father, but I have lots of love and respect for him too, and I know that what I went through helped make me  the whom I am today.
I don't buy it when people whine and cry about their childhoods! Grow UP! Take responsibility for your own life and live it. Life is far too long to hold grudges.
And that goes double for the guy who was abused (or saw a father abuse a mother) as a child when it is time for him to be a father. I don't buy that you are genetically predisposed to being abusive (with the exception of being genetically stupid).
"Red Herrings", how is it red herring to point out that there is a co-ordination of the forces that pushed this issue to the forefront? How is it a red herring to point out the inequality with which our "absolutes" are enforced? How is it a red herring to point out the downside of our puritanical sexual morays? There not red herrings, they are legitimate discussion points which both you and Anonymous choose to disregard because they don't fit in with you preconceived notions.
"That certain unacceptable practices are allowed in other cultures also has no bearing on the matter."
I see, so  whatever is done here means it's right and whatever is done not here has no validity... Egoism at it's finest!
"Apologist" I didn't apologize for anybody. I don't condone their behavior and I have said so numerous times, but again, there's that reading comprehension problem we've spoken about.
Now that I have explained to you why you are not up to the task of having this discussion, why don't you find another headline that we can discuss and maybe you'll do better in that conversation.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

anonymous wrote:
Whomit, your ability to back up your viewpoints about why child molestation isn't so bad, speaks much greater volumes about your character than it does about your intellect.

You see Anonymous, this is what is known as an ad hominem argument. You don't refute a single thing I've said and only attack my character (you argue at the man and not the argument he makes.)
This is how I know how smart you aren't (I'm telling you something important here, you'd be well served to take this lesson to heart). people judge your intellect by things like your vocabulary and the depth of your reasoning.
Yes they also judge you by how shiney your shoes are and your suit is not. Yes they also judge you by what kind of car you drive and what sort of wine you drink and what sort of family life you have and on and on and on... But people want to believe that they are dealing with someone who is smarter than they are, and that's why they put their financial trust in you. So far, I'd trust you to get a gallon of milk, but I'd tell you how much change to expect.
Ad Hominem is the second lowest form of argument, lowest being pro hominem, meaning being a "Yes Man" as in, there is no argument. You should ty to avoid ad hominem arguments at all costs

AllREIT's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-12-16

anonymous wrote:And stop thinking that sex is such a sinful thing that no child could ever recover from premature sex.
I've made my position as clear as I can, if you are serious
about discussing this then refute what I have said , not by just
spouting dogma, but by showing that you understand what has been said
and then saying why it is wrong.

You have made your position perfectly clear:
Whomitmayconcern's positon: sexual molestation of children by
priests is just "premature sex" and although is not a good thing, it is
only society that makes this a bad thing.  The priests deserve to
be forgiven.   The payment to the children who got to
enjoy the love making was an undeserved bonus. 
Anonymous' Position: sexual molestation of children by priests is a
terrible awful crime.   They belong in jail for the rest of
their lives as does anybody who was involved with covering up the crime
and allowing these priests to have further access to children. 
The payment to the children who were raped will never make up for what
happened to them.

Whomit's position isn't that child molestation is ok, but that its not
anywhere near as harmful as all the fuss being made and money being
thrown about imply.

I'd bet a milkshake, that if the church offered only free psychotherapy and no cash to anyone who had been "molested" you would see very few takers.

The fact that people are seeking cash settlements over pure
compensation tells you that various cases against the Church are not
motivated by pure intentions.

But its easy as pie to go railing about how bad and awful pedophilia
is, and your not going to find many people saying that this is something
people need to step back from and look at rationally.

The whole pedophile priest hysteria is very similar to day care sex
abuse hysteria in the mid 1980s. No doubt many people have repressed
(and now recovered!) memories about how horribly abused they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sexual_abuse_hysteria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fells_Acres_Day_Care_Center#Chi ld_testimony_research

primary's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-08

If I may give my take on this. Whomit, you do not agree with the pedophile acts of priests (incidentally, they are gay same sex pedophiles) since they don't bother little girls but it could be due to "alter boy" situations, convenience, whatever.   You say that the young boys will "get over it" and won't be scarred for life.  You say that some states recognize a young age as "age of consent".  You say the Catho-o-lic Church is the real victim here and doesn't deserve this penalty of paying out lots to victims.  Have I got that right? re: your viewpoint.  You say some girls are victimized at a young age and you don't say this is wrong.  Sure, maybe the girls would get over it since they never had a chance to use their sex organs, anyway. 
Could it be that when it comes to money or a reputation (for example, the Catholic Church's reputation here), that your judgment is very cloudy?  Judging from your other posts, you are highly influenced by anything financial and it does seem to totally cloud your judgement. 
The Catholic church have the anulment process for making money-it costs lots of money to get an anulment.  Think about someone who is married with a prior child getting their marriage annuled, it's like the child wasn't born with a legal father since you are renouncing the prior marriage with the anulment process.
IMO, It's wrong to prey on young children (boys or girls) and penalty should result.  Just like there are class actions and law suits against financial services agencies, religious institutions should be hit where it hurts (in the pocketbook).  Throughout history, there have been alot of injustices from the results of actions of the Catholic Church or believers thereof - in goverment even hints of mafia affliation with the church. I'm no history buff so can't give specifics.
Before you move on to another headline, look at what you said, whomit, and 'why' you said it.
There was a talkshow few years ago where a gay guy said he had a crusch on this straight guy.  The straight guy was so embarrassed that he murdered this guy.
Sure some children are abused and get over it, --but what about the ones who don't.  Many don't get over it and are scarred for life.  The moneys paid out are for the victims who don't get over it.  There needs to be some justice for the injustice.  Too bad you don't feel this way.  But perhaps once you reflect, you will have a new way of thinking here.  If you are the intellectual you think you are, then you will know when you are actually wrong in your current view and have "faulty' thinking.  Being able to change your view will show just how smart you really are.
Society must pay for it's ills and pedophile priests is an ILL whether a molested, raped child gets over it or not.  
 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29
AllREIT's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-12-16

primary wrote:Sure some children are abused and get over it, --but
what about the ones who don't.  Many don't get over it and are
scarred for life.  The moneys paid out are for the victims who
don't get over it.  There needs to be some justice for the injustice.

So justice can be measured in monetary terms? 13 "bad touches" @ 12,500 per touch == All better???

If this was really about pain and suffering, then the "victims" would not be asking for money.

All of the events in question happened (if they happened) privately,
a long time ago, and are subject to hazy recolection. The impact of
those events is similarly unquantifiable. How do you show that it was
"sexual abuse" that caused the problems vs some other cause.

If someone accuses you "He touched my wee wee 17 years ago" 
how exactly do you defend yourself, or even prove that the incident
ever happened (not happen)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

We have a very big problem with accusations of child abuse being
non-falsifiable if the only evidence in their favor is someone claiming
to be abused and the only counter evidence being a claim that it didn't happen.
The whole subject has been taken over by people who prefer emotion
(rage, hysteria, holier than thou gloating,  smugness, etc) over
being in touch with reality and the objective world.

primary's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-08

No, it would be better to throw them in jail and let them get butt raped but then they'd probably like it since they are gay but just prefer very young partners since it's all about overpowering a helpless child so let them be overpowered by some tossedsalad 'girlfriends' in prison.
It can be worked out with the JUSTICE system-that's why we have a justice system and normally if you don't go to jail as in case of OJ Simpson whom everyone believes is guilty then you get them where it hurts (monetary)-he owes a bunch of money but won't pay any of it.
If you do a wrong, you must pay and the justice system either puts you away and/or you pay a price.
Whomit, you need to evaulate your faulty thinking here.  If the priests are innocent, let it be worked out in the justice system.
By ignoring and not paying a price, this will only encourage further abuse.  

AllREIT's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-12-16

primary wrote:No, it would be better to throw them in jail and let
them get butt raped but then they'd probably like it since they are gay
but just prefer very young partners since it's all about overpowering a
helpless child so let them be overpowered by some tossedsalad
'girlfriends' in prison.

I think you are projecting.
Quote:Whomit, you need to evaulate your faulty thinking here.  If the priests are innocent, let it be worked out in the justice system.

There's no proof that anything happened. Just alot of people asking for money on the basis of "abuse" that they "experienced"
But it's not socially acceptable to point out how weak and swiss
cheese the case of the "victims" is. E.g see the reaction to whomit is.

Quote:By ignoring and not paying a price, this will only encourage further abuse.  

How exactly are pedophiles to be detered with promises of harsh punishment? Is this a crime of economic calculation?

At best this is a medical issue and should be treated as such.

primary's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-08

That's like asking how DUI's are being deterred.  If you have a punishment that fits the crime (of course! they should go to jail).
I'm not projecting anything just commenting on prior post that prison isn't that nice and you can be raped in prison (better to avoid doing wrong or going to prison and if innocent, we hope the justice system will serve you just as we do if you are guilty.)
My post was directed to whomit and understanding why he thinks the way he does.  Appears to be financially motivated.  If there's no proof, Catholic church can seek justice so they don't have to pay then.  It's up to the justice system out of our hands.
The best thing would be to throw these priests out of the church-assume this has been done. Not Catholic and don't have the interest in knowing all the details here.  Maybe there's a saint for pedofile priests they can pray to. Yes, Christian way is to forgive sins and they should repent of those sins.  I don't know the details but maybe the Catholic Church will have a fresh start to ensure this doesn't continue to reoccur and since it's in the "headlines" victims will promptly report it.  Parents have more awareness and so do children on what's appropriate behavior of a Catholic priest.  Underlying issue is that church requires celibacy and seems to ensnare pedophiles into the profession just as teachers are drawn into the profession so they can have close interaction and opportunity for committing pedophile acts.  

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

 
http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html
Here's a list of consent ages by state, please note Mississippi.
Primary, I must say that I don't understand much of what you have said, and while I thank you for at least trying to show that you understand what I have said, I'm pretty sure that you have some key points wrong.
First, Yes, I do NOT agree with the actions of pedophile priests.
Second,(firstly) I don't care if they are gay or not. I do think that the priesthood has become a closet for men who did not want to face the fact that they were gay and went into the priesthood for the "safety" of celibacy. Secondly, I do not think that pedophile priests are so because they are gay, two gay men in the priesthood are much more likely to be attracted to each other than to young boys. Historically, hetero males "make do" with young boys so as to get around the commandment against adultery.
Third.. something about little girls... Well, when MY little girls are involved, I'm damned sure to be aware of what's going on around them, I can't imagine some parent just letting their son go away for the weekend with a full grown man who has no nookie of his own and there is no chaperone. Not me! No way!
4. "scarred for life" We're all scarred. But the way the boy whose father died in the car crash, or the girl whose face was torn asunder by a dog, or a car accident, or the boy I went to school with who dropped a firecracker into a tank of gasoline and had burn scars from his neck to his feet, they have to learn to live with it. What then is the difference?
The difference is the phony importance we put on sex. We make the victim of sexual abuse feel that it is better to hide the fact that they had been abused than to report it. We're in many ways no better than the Pakistani's who will kill a woman who allowed herself to be raped. We cling to this old testament view of ourselves that sex is evil (when King David took Bathsheba to be his wife, by sending her husband, a general out on a mission that David knew was suicide, after having seen her bathe nude on her rooftop, God, who used to talk with David all the time, suddenly stopped. The message was clear, sexual desire is a sin!) As I stated earlier in re prison rape, the reason for the rape is to subjugate to victim, how is this? Because the victim knows, deep in his heart that having sex done to you is dirty. It's the same with the boy molested by the priest. Whether the boy wanted to engage or not (most boys are smart enough to know when to get away from somebody whose getting too close) he still knows, deep down that what happened is wrong. Not because it specifically IS, but because we accept that it is.
We know that this is true because we can see throughout history that people who have lived without this prohibition have suffered no ill effects.
The irony here is that, given the freedom to choose, most opt away from this sort of activity and it is mostly in theocratic societies that this behavior manifests.
5. Catholic victim... Again, here is an example of "A" equals "Not B" thinking. I don't mean to imply that the true victim is the Church, but I do point out that they are also a victim of a vested interest. Don't think for a second that this is not costing the Catholic Church both members and at the collection plate. There is a resistance to dropping money into a basket that will pay fines for a priest that did what we all know is wrong.
The Catholic Church already has a huge problem in the USA, not enough priests, not enough people entering the priesthood. As I mentioned before, the church thrives where prosperity doesn't. This blow is not going to help the Church's situation. That helps the Anti Papist churches who want the Catholic money in their collection plates.
So when you ask "Have I got it right re: your viewpoint?', I guess I have to say no.
Nor do you have this right: "You say some girls are victimized at a young age and you don't say this is wrong. Sure, maybe the girls would get over it since they never had a chance to use their sex organs, anyway." You have that so wrong it makes me wonder what the heck you're talking about. Female Genital Mutilation was brought up to give some perspective to the issue. The point was raised that priests are particularly heinous because of their position of authority, and yet mothers are the one's who hold down their daughters (some as young as 5 years old) and spread their legs as someone practically tears away the clitoris and labia while the child screams in horror and pain! And yet, these girls grow up to be women (there's some supermodel who speaks out against this and it happened to her) So when someone says that an altar boy will never get over this, I ask "why?". One answer is that this is something that happens to all girls of certain cultures, and so they don't grow up with the shame. That is the reason that I aver that it is our attitude towards sex that causes the "mental anguish" that never heals.
"
Could it be that when it comes to money or a reputation (for example, the Catholic Church's reputation here), that your judgment is very cloudy? Judging from your other posts, you are highly influenced by anything financial and it does seem to totally cloud your judgement."
You're not in this business are you? Fine with me, I'll have the discussion anyway, but this point is not worthy of response.
The Catholic Church does lots of things that make it lots of money. Religion in general is the opiate of the people and by that I mean they will pay anything to have more of it once they're hooked on it. Annulment is one of those sorts of conveniences that Thomas Moore (author of the book Utopia ) says is why the Catholic Church is far from Christ's message (BTW Thomas Moore was martyred when he would not go along with Henry the Eight's break from the Church because they wouldn't grant him another annulment, he became Saint Thomas for his pains).
Keep in mind that I am the one who Indyone disdains for having said "Christians are retarded" by which I meant that they are forced to accept ideas that fly in the face of all logic and reason, they must "retard" (hold back) their own thought process.
"Throughout history, there have been alot of injustices from the results of actions of the Catholic Church or believers thereof - in goverment even hints of mafia affliation with the church. I'm no history buff so can't give specifics."
Yeah, I'm no history buff, but I'm pretty sure that was Godfather III !
I'm so glad you brought up the bad things that mother Church is responsible for. I don't suppose the number of St Somebody colleges in this country? They're Catholic! In fact it was the church that established the university system, based on the books of Aristotle. How about the St. Somebody Hospitals? Heard of them?
But of course, nobody wants to talk about the good the Church has done with its money and power.
Yes the Jenny Jones incident, that goes to prove my point about how screwed up our sexual morays are, thanks for bringing it up, but I don't think we see it as having the same significance.
"Sure some children are abused and get over it, --but what about the ones who don't. Many don't get over it and are scarred for life. The moneys paid out are for the victims who don't get over it. "
That is one psychotic thought, that money can make it better! Money, the sex you can carry in your wallet!
Money equals Justice huh? You shouldn't be talking to me about religion or morality.
"Too bad you don't feel this way. But perhaps once you reflect, you will have a new way of thinking here. If you are the intellectual you think you are, then you will know when you are actually wrong in your current view and have "faulty' thinking. Being able to change your view will show just how smart you really are."
That only works one way huh? It doesn't work if you decide that I'm correct in my thinking, only if I capitulate and surrender myself to the "TRUTH!" You prove it and I'll consider it, but so far you got bubkiss.
Societies' ills, we agree, but I want to treat the disease, not just punish the symptoms.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

You see Anonymous, this is what is known as an ad hominem argument. You don't refute a single thing I've said and only attack my character (you argue at the man and not the argument he makes.)
Your character deserves to be attacked.   Your specific points are not worthy of a response.
"I'd bet a milkshake, that if the church offered only free psychotherapy and no cash to anyone who had been "molested" you would see very few takers."
I'm sure that this is true.  So what.  It doesn't change the fact about what happened to them.  It just means that free psychotherapy doesn't make it worth it to the victims to have this take center stage in their life again.  Can't you understand that they want the church and the priests to be punished. 
At best this is a medical issue and should be treated as such.
Well at least I can understand why you  are backing up Whomit in this conversation.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Allreit,
I just want to say that I'm honored to be one the same side here.
I admire people who can recognize that one difference of opinion doesn't mean all opinions must be different.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×