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.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"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. 

[/quote]

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.

"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.

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.

[quote=anonymous]

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.

[/quote]

amen!

Whomit diddles little boys.

[quote=farotech]

Whomit diddles little boys.

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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

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. 

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.

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!@

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. 

"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.