The Glade 4.0

Prove that it's foolish, and justify your assertion that a considerable part of my profession involves burden of proof. For instance, can you tell me what percentage of legal work involves litigation? Why should a conjecture absent supporting proof be disregarded? What is the basis for that claim? And so on, and so on.


It was a rhetorical question intended to point out that other people were making bare assertions without proof, but never got called on it. There's an annoying tendency on the Glade of late for people to disparage folks they disagree with for not providing proof while conveniently ignoring the equally unsupported contentions of those they agree with.

Which leads into the point: I won't, so I expect you to regard it with about as much respect as Khross and Vindi are regarding Aizle's.

_________________


Grenade 3 Sports Drink. It's fire in the hole.. Your hole!

In September of 2009 the catholic church published a report indicating that "only" 1.5%-5% of catholic clergy are engaged in child abuse. Now, I take the catholic report with skepticism, because they are notoriously protective of their child-buggering prists, but even assuming they are correct, the comparitive number is the prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known, but is estimated to be lower than 5%. (Your source points this out. I think you're looking at the wrong numbers.) Personally, I think all such numbers are appallingly high. Nevertheless, an organization that supposedly represents "God" should be an order of magnitude better than society at large. Instead they not only may rate higher than society at large, but they enable, shelter and protect their offenders.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't think you know the mission of the catholic church - it's not to represent God.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I can only assume that since you quoted the portion of my post that dealt directly with the comparative rates of pedophilia, you were somehow trying to disprove my citations. You'll note that the selection you chose to quote deals with pedophilia specifically, and not child abuse as a whole.

Further, I believe the "Catholic report" you are attempting to reference was a statement issued by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, that statement was based on the work done by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice - I'm sure they're interested in protecting the "child-buggering prists". Unless, of course, I'm wrong and you're referencing an actual published report, in which case, actually cite it and we can all take a look at it.

Also, that statement references the Christian Science Monitor survey results that "...most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers." The rate I've found for Catholic priests .03% while the rate for Protestant clergy is 2-3% [Jenkins] All of that kinda works against the whole celibacy slant doesn't it?


Please show where my source points that out.


.03 to 3-9 is orders of magnitude.


Again, comparing the specific acts of pedophilia (as is directly stated as the target of conjecture in this thread) to child abuse in general is a blatant attempt to move the goal posts at worst, or the use of terms in ignorance at best.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Since your real source was Wikipedia, using their own sources as your stated source --shown by the sources not being accessible online... (not that I have a problem with it, but you've complained in the past about me using it), we'll quote the exact statement:



Now...


1.5% to "Less than 5%" is not.




Interesting you should point that out, considering a problem with the numbers you used:

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Let's analyze this statement, by the way, since i believe you are intellectually dishonest by misrepresenting the facts in ways that are based on truth.

Yes, the reference was a statement issued by archbishop Silvano Tomasi. He himself was referencing what he called "available research." I think most sensible people would agree that the church he is directly speaking for would not overrepresent that number or agree with a figure that painted them in a less favorable light if they didn't feel it was -- at worst, accurate, or at best (for them) a gross underestmation. In any event, let's continue.

"Most American churches being hitwith child sexual-abuse allegations are protestant." In 2008, 25% of American adults self-identified as Catholics. 51% of American adults self identified as non-catholic christians. Based on sheer probabilities I would be highly surprised if there were not more sexual abuse allegations in protestant churches. In any event, I'm not really arguing for celebacy being a factor. In fact, I've argued against it. I highly doubt Aizle and Rangerdave's assertions that a vow of celebacy might be a factor in turning healthy men into boy-buggerers. I have argued that celebacy is a deterrent to joining the priesthood only for those interested in getting married, and those with alternative inclinations would not be deterred from joining. However, all clergy have extended opportunities to commit such attrocities, due to their position. I certainly have no inclination to defend the protestant churches as being any better than catholics.

Edit:
By the way, regardless of which numbers you believe in regard to the general prevalence of pedophilia...even 3% is still extremely disturbing. I probably know several thousand by name. It never occurred to me that several of them are likely to be pedophiles. Whether we're saying 3-9% or "less than 5%", with 198 user accounts on the glade (not factoring several of them are duplicates)...that means somewher between 5 and 18 people who read these forums also diddle children. This realization alone is enough to destroy any sense of community I might feel. It's disgusting!

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'd like something other than your opinion on this, otherwise let's just agree it's fiction.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

You do not believe people in positions of trust, authority and moral superiority who also have access to children will end up with more opportunities to commit sexually abusive acts against them and get away with it? I rather believe that that is common sense...but maybe you're right. Maybe occupations that are untrusted, have no access to children, and no moral authority whatsoever will end up with more cases of child abuse. Yeah. Right.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This thread would be funny if it were not for the child molestation bit of it. Pointing fingers at Catholic priests, while society as a whole is equally as guilty. But it must be more fun to single out the priests. People who do that make me wonder what they are hiding, since they seem hell-bent on pointing fingers the other way. It may be nothing, but it makes me wonder.

To a kid, most adults fall in the category of "positions of trust and authority and moral superiority" - they have to be taught otherwise.

And as far as the "access to children" thing ... I believe a priest's opportunity to have access to children in order to commit abusive acts is actually lower than most adults. <- This coming from someone who attended a catholic parochial school.

If I were someone that wanted to molest kids, I'd be a sports coach, a scout leader, janitor at a grade school, a teacher, a doctor ... something like that. That, or I'd just grab one off the street.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

If there's a good and just God, She certainly has no use for clergy or the church. Apologists for boy-buggering catholic priests, and instead accuse those with legitimate concerns of hiding something make me wonder what they are hiding, since they seem hell-bent on excusing an attrocity which is just one of a billion completely legitimate reasons for which the Church taken as a comprehensive whole should be burned to the round with its leadership being drawn and quartered for committing, enabling, and hiding. It may be nothing, but it makes me wonder.



That's the thing...children have historically been taught that priests ARE adults that they can trust and who have moral superiority. This is likely changing, due to the publicity of so many terrible cases, but nobody historically told their children to be careful with the priests. He's not a stranger, he's a friend of all the families in his church, and he's to be trusted, implicitly.



I didn't say there might not be other positions that have more access, but i think you're underestimating the priest's acces to children, with the number of youth programs churches run, the number of orphanages the church administers, not to mention the ubiquitous altar boys, etc. Grabbing one off the street is harder with greater risk and penalties when you get caught, and keeping it hidden would be harder for those without God-granted sheltering.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

So are cops, doctors, teachers, etc, etc, etc.

You said "who also have access to children will end up with more opportunities to commit sexually abusive acts against them". Like I said, I went to catholic school, and I was an altar boy. I was never alone with a priest. I think you grossly overestimate a priests ability to be alone with a kid.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I am an Anglican preacher's daughter. While thankfully my father is a good, if misguided man, had he wanted access to his congregation's children, there would have been plenty of opportunities... Far more than cops and doctors.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Very few of the 41,489 priests in the US share a family background you can identify with, Taly.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Heh. It'd be amusing if dad were to post here. While most of the time, I've never met a kinder, gentler man, if you want to see him get vicious, start discussing the Catholic church. Not surprising, I suppose, coming from a good orange Belfast-born protestant...

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Not at all. The burden of proof logically falls on the person making the positive statement. It doesn't switch to someone else just because they're "having a conversation" or phrasing it all nicely; if they are simply saying "it seems to me..." then at least they should be able to explain some factual reason that would lead them to beleive that even if they can't completely prove it.

In the case above, both people are making a positive statement (i.e. that something positively is the case); Carl is just stating that the negative is positively true. If Carl had said "I see no reason to think that X leads to Y" then he wouldn't have any burden of proof becuase he is simply stating that the connection is absent; Bob would need to, at a minimum, give some logical reason to think X leads to Y.

If Bob's reason is simply his assumption about what something he has no experience with would be like, that's not evidence. That's Bob's uninformed guess. It's not even an opinion because he's simply guessing as to what the facts are. Guesses =/= opinions.

As for this "not needing to be a burden of proof on anyone", you simply can't have a conversation without any need for anyone to provide any evidence. We've been through that. It was at the root of Monty's problems. He felt his own positions to be so self-evidently true that they simply bore repeating enough times and eventually everyone else would admit they were wrong and opposing him only out of.. well whatever motivation he thought we had. It often is the case that neither side can "prove" their point irrefutably, but it frequently is the case that one side can't prove theirs at all and then goes off whining about how mean everyone is being because they're getting trounced.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Since you've been talking like a **** idiot most of the thread, I did not expect you to stop now. Since my comment in no way was "apologistic" toward Catholic priests who are also pedophiles, I am "excusing" nothing, and even the simplest shred of reading comprehension would tell you so. But don't let sense interfere with your prejudice. You'd ruin the entire thread.

I hate to break this to you but "I find this to be..." is a statement of opinion and not subject to demands for proof. "A considerable part" is subjective, and in any case, the ability to litigate is ultimately what the legal profession revolves around; even in cases that do not involve litigation the ability to prove one's case if it comes to that is hugely important, and it certainly meets a subjective standard for "considerable". Finally, you cannot use the logical concept of burden of proof to call into question other logical concepts such as the need for evidence. This is a stolen concept fallacy, and renders the question itself unanswerable; in order to prove that conjecture needs supporting evidence he would need to provide supporting evidence which you could then reject on the basis that your conjecture to the contrary does not necessarily require supporting evidence. All you're really saying is "if you hold me to some intellectual standard I'll just barrage you with questions until you stop so my assertions can stand unchallanged."


That's because it's the job of the people doing the disagreeing to ask for it. In that way, both sides ultimately have it demanded of them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, my source was not Wikipedia. My source is The Journal of Sexual Medicine. The source is available online through multiple resources including a personal or academic (in my case) subscription. So, I guess I wasn't looking at the wrong numbers in the study I cited, while you weren't even looking at the study.





Great, it's also irrelevant.



That doesn't show a problem with the numbers I used. It shows a problem with your understanding of the word "commonly". As well as the fact that you didn't read the whole statement in Wiki:

So, when quoting researchers it would behoove you to pay heed to the meanings of the words as used by those who are educated on the subject, not how a man on the street may or may not use them. So apples to apples comparison would use pedophilia and sexual abuse of a minor as intended by someone who makes a distinction i.e. a reasearcher - the person who is presenting the numbers you're using. That being the case, stop comparing rates for the broad "child sexual abuse" and the much more narrow "pedophilia" unless your intent is to merely attempt to muddy the waters.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Oh yes, my near-genius level intellect and highly logical and rational debate style would seem idiotic to one so incapable of any level of logical argument so much that many people here have mistaken you for one of the biggest buffoons this board has ever seen. I don't doubt that.



Yes, you have. To whit--


(1) No, society is not equally as guilty. (2) "But they did it too!" is not an excuse. The Church has an obligation to be better than the society it has chosen to set itself above, so even if it was equally guilty, that entirely eliminates any shred of moral authority it may claim.



It's those who have not yet become prejudiced against the Churches and religion as a whole that have ruined human society for millennia, so take your pea-sized brain and infantile wit and go back to your church where a lack of rational thought is an asset.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yeah, right. Except you're a liar and a hypocrite and don't actually make honest arguments when religion is involved, and have been caught in such things before. When you link it, I'll believe you.




Perhaps, but more relevant than .03 to 3-9, which is outright wrong.



Uh...everything I said is supported by everything you just quoted. It essentially means that the percentages of society as a whole are just somewhat educated guesses.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

/sarcasm on

Wow. I guess you told me!

/sarcasm off

I give you credit for one thing, however, and that is admitting to your prejudice.

You lose all credibility as a rational thinker the moment you express anything except for utter contempt for religion, so, despite the innacuracy (prejudice implies judging before the evidence is presented. I've seen the evidence and no informed and sane person could excuse religion --this isn't prejudice, it's just a rational judgement), I'll take that as a complement.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No, I am not being intellectually dishonest. I cited directly where my numbers came from. I didn't just state things (wrongly mis-attributing them at that). I even told you where the numbers the statement you cited came from. Yet you refuse to acknowledge the fact that those numbers came from a study conducted by the respected John Jay College of Criminal Justice, instead trying to insinuate that those numbers are skewed in favor of the Church. If you think that's the case try actually presenting counter-evidence instead of your own bias as proof. Where's the intellectual dishonesty?



You're saying that more pedophiles would be Catholic priests because of the requirement for celibacy (Note the correct spelling). All the evidence presented shows otherwise. As for your feeling of community, you'd be better off surrounding yourself with Catholic and Protestant clergy, as in both cases the rates of pedophilia are, at worst, half that of the general population.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko