Defence Of Catholic Teaching

[Quagmire]

 

As callous a dismissal of the institutionalised rape of children as you're likely to see.

 

If you are going to reference reports commissioned by Catholic Bishops to dispute these "child abuse" claims, at least fucking read it.

 

From page 6 of the report (you don't even have to read that much!!) : "The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14."

 

So only 27.3% were between the ages of 15-17. Even if all of these were "sexually mature, adolescent males" (which is not true), that still leave 62.7% who were absolutely, and definitely "children".

 

Don't you just hate it when the facts expose the truth about your kiddy-fucking cult?

 

But you're right, let's not take this off topic....

 

Great post.

[chaos_defrost]

 

As callous a dismissal of the institutionalised rape of children as you're likely to see.

 

If you are going to reference reports commissioned by Catholic Bishops to dispute these "child abuse" claims, at least fucking read it.

 

From page 6 of the report (you don't even have to read that much!!) : "The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14."

 

So only 27.3% were between the ages of 15-17. Even if all of these were "sexually mature, adolescent males" (which is not true), that still leave 62.7% who were absolutely, and definitely "children".

 

Don't you just hate it when the facts expose the truth about your kiddy-fucking cult?

 

But you're right, let's not take this off topic....

 

Can't wait for his reply

[alscotoz]

I think CS is a priest.

[craegDAMH]

Great post.

 

Yeah. Wish I could count though.... Should be 72.3%!!

[tightbreeks]

The way I see it is that it's a human trait to try and justify our position in the grand scheme of things. We are sentient beings and our self awareness is key.

 

When all this came about, the world was flat and the universe revolved around the earth. Now that we have are far superior knowledge of our surroundings, then religion is now obsolete. It has to adjust or it just becomes dangerous, like the us of a. It's a young country and unlike Europe, it has still to overcome what we did yonks ago. It's a strange thing, but the U.S. was formed as a secular state!?

 

I'm sure Jesus meant overall, just be sound cunts.

 

On saying that, due to the spaces between particles in atoms, it stands to reason that there are big monsters in another dimension playing marbles of little universes. Like the end of mib.

[Jigot]

The majority of arguments in my hoose concerns religion. My wife, being a Catholic and me being an Athiest. To me religion is just brainwashing and it's superstision, threats and fear are not needed in this day and age. Treat folk the way you expect to be treated and life wouldn't be such a bitch.

[caledonia]

The majority of arguments in my hoose concerns religion. My wife, being a Catholic and me being an Athiest. To me religion is just brainwashing and it's superstision, threats and fear are not needed in this day and age. Treat folk the way you expect to be treated and life wouldn't be such a bitch.

 

agree something that cant be proved scientifically one way or the other for me is just hogwash

 

If you are in court and you say god told you to do it you will be laughed out of the same court

but if you are in a fucking church he can tell you what to do and its accepted

 

Its all pish for me anyway but if others want to believe then that is up to them

[robbojunior]

 

agree something that cant be proved scientifically one way or the other for me is just hogwash

 

If you are in court and you say god told you to do it you will be laughed out of the same court

but if you are in a fucking church he can tell you what to do and its accepted

 

Its all pish for me anyway but if others want to believe then that is up to them

 

Can you prove scientifically how I feel?

[chaos_defrost]

The majority of arguments in my hoose concerns religion. My wife, being a Catholic and me being an Athiest. To me religion is just brainwashing and it's superstision, threats and fear are not needed in this day and age. Treat folk the way you expect to be treated and life wouldn't be such a bitch.

 

Amen

[Ke1t]

 

Can you prove scientifically how I feel?

 

Probably with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

 

Your mood is determined by the release of chemical neurotransmitters into the brain, something we've known for a number of years now. I think science already has a broad overview of what the interactions of those chemicals mean in terms of how one is feeling, though I'd imagine there's a long way still to go.

 

But there's nothing supernatural or arcane about how we 'feel'.

 

Brains

[robbojunior]

 

Probably with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

 

Your mood is determined by the release of chemical neurotransmitters into the brain, something we've known for a number of years now. I think science already has a broad overview of what the interactions of those chemicals mean in terms of how one is feeling, though I'd imagine there's a long way still to go.

 

But there's nothing supernatural or arcane about how we 'feel'.

 

Brains

 

Dinna misunderstand me, i'm not making a case for anything supernatural or for the existence of 'god'

 

Just saying that if you only go by what can be scientifically proved, then you're probably going to end up looking a bit silly. There is plenty of things that patently are real that can't be proved / explained by science.

 

That said, the idea of a big all knowing all seeing dude in the sky that can read my thoughts, is an embarrassment to intellect.

[The Boofon]

 

Dinna misunderstand me, i'm not making a case for anything supernatural or for the existence of 'god'

 

Just saying that if you only go by what can be scientifically proved, then you're probably going to end up looking a bit silly. There is plenty of things that patently are real that can't be proved / explained by science.

 

That said, the idea of a big all knowing all seeing dude in the sky that can read my thoughts, is an embarrassment to intellect.

 

 

Are there?

 

Such as what?

 

Not a challenge I hasten to add. I just can't think of anything off the top of my head.

[robbojunior]

 

 

Are there?

 

Such as what?

 

Not a challenge I hasten to add. I just can't think of anything off the top of my head.

 

EDIT: I take your point - I couldn't really give an example either, but its kinda an obviously correct statement. Science has been proved wrong as knowledge evolves so it stands to reason that it can't explain everything, if even some of the stuff it claims to explain, has been proven wrong.

 

From a quick google however, given that science relies on a very strict set of rules to test any theory, there's lots of things that lie outside these rules.

For example

http://powertochange.com/discover/life/five-things-science-explain/

 

You might argue this is just rhetoric but it's also true.

And in addition, there are many things that science has observed, but does not have an explanation for.

For example

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/15-things-that-scientists-just-cant-explain#.oazBWZR9N

 

Obviously that's just quick google, and as much as a buzzfeed page should not really be brought out in an argument about science, you get the point.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

As callous a dismissal of the institutionalised rape of children as you're likely to see.

 

If you are going to reference reports commissioned by Catholic Bishops to dispute these "child abuse" claims, at least fucking read it.

 

From page 6 of the report (you don't even have to read that much!!) : "The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14."

 

So only 27.3% were between the ages of 15-17. Even if all of these were "sexually mature, adolescent males" (which is not true), that still leave 62.7% who were absolutely, and definitely "children".

 

The vast majority of victims were sexually mature males - i.e they had adult bodies.

 

(Most people go through puberty around ages 11-12.)

 

You were right to pick me up for saying 90% were sexually mature, that was an error I made (I would never lie intentionally, but am capable of being wrong or making a typo).

 

But the fact remains, the majority of victims were sexually mature males - that is the truth.

 

The victim profile according to John Jay was:

 

81% victims male, 19% victims female

 

22% victims younger than 10

51% of victims aged between 11 and 14 (age 11 is the lower end of when puberty starts).

27% of victims aged 15 - 17

 

Most victims were sexually mature (post-puberty) males. Its a fact. People can grandstand all they like, but they cant change the facts.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

You have no idea about reality.

 

 

 

I have a much better grasp of it than a circus article like you, thank you very much.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Yeah. Wish I could count though.... Should be 72.3%!!

 

So you made a mistake in your figures too (?) - I think we are agreed as to what profile made up the bulk of the victims.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

 

Are there?

 

Such as what?

 

Not a challenge I hasten to add. I just can't think of anything off the top of my head.

 

 

Robbojunior makes a good point, there is lots science cant explain.

 

Where did the unvierse come from and why, for start.

 

Increasingly science is becoming a religion of its own.

 

Scientists currently claim that 80%+ of the universe is made up of what they call dark matter. No-one has ever seen this dark matter, we are just supposed to believe in it because scientists need this article of faith (make no mistake, thats what it is) in order to make their theories work.

 

And the reason they often need fudges like this is because they try to make new information fit existing models (the big bang is the current model), even if it doesnt.

 

Dark matter has been credited with both constraining the size of the universe, and expanding it (two opposite effects).

 

Increasingly science is speculative and with the modern "celebrity scientists" (hawking, dawkins, the guy out of D-Ream etc) people lap up anything they say as unerring fact.

 

Credulity towards a scientist instead of a priest is still credulity.

[The Boofon]

 

The vast majority of victims were sexually mature males - i.e they had adult bodies.

 

(Most people go through puberty around ages 11-12.)

 

You were right to pick me up for saying 90% were sexually mature, that was an error I made (I would never lie intentionally, but am capable of being wrong or making a typo).

 

But the fact remains, the majority of victims were sexually mature males - that is the truth.

 

The victim profile according to John Jay was:

 

81% victims male, 19% victims female

 

22% victims younger than 10

51% of victims aged between 11 and 14 (age 11 is the lower end of when puberty starts).

27% of victims aged 15 - 17

 

Most victims were sexually mature (post-puberty) males. Its a fact. People can grandstand all they like, but they cant change the facts.

 

 

Wow.

 

Are you suggesting then it's OK to fuck a young girl if she's started having periods?

[Quagmire]

 

The vast majority of victims were sexually mature males - i.e they had adult bodies.

 

(Most people go through puberty around ages 11-12.)

 

You were right to pick me up for saying 90% were sexually mature, that was an error I made (I would never lie intentionally, but am capable of being wrong or making a typo).

 

But the fact remains, the majority of victims were sexually mature males - that is the truth.

 

The victim profile according to John Jay was:

 

81% victims male, 19% victims female

 

22% victims younger than 10

51% of victims aged between 11 and 14 (age 11 is the lower end of when puberty starts).

27% of victims aged 15 - 17

 

Most victims were sexually mature (post-puberty) males. Its a fact. People can grandstand all they like, but they cant change the facts.

 

You are one sick bastard.

[craegDAMH]

 

The vast majority of victims were sexually mature males - i.e they had adult bodies.

 

(Most people go through puberty around ages 11-12.)

 

You were right to pick me up for saying 90% were sexually mature, that was an error I made (I would never lie intentionally, but am capable of being wrong or making a typo).

 

But the fact remains, the majority of victims were sexually mature males - that is the truth.

 

The victim profile according to John Jay was:

 

81% victims male, 19% victims female

 

22% victims younger than 10

51% of victims aged between 11 and 14 (age 11 is the lower end of when puberty starts).

27% of victims aged 15 - 17

 

Most victims were sexually mature (post-puberty) males. Its a fact. People can grandstand all they like, but they cant change the facts.

 

So once they are 12+ it's fair game?! It's still child abuse, whether they were sexually mature or not. And sexual maturity isn't a binary thing, it's not a case of one day you wake up and.... *poof*..... sexually mature! Come and get me boys! So you think once you are sexually mature it's no longer abuse if you are coerced into sexual activities? Disgusting.

 

The fact that your response to the profile of the victims is anything other than repulsion against the institution which knew it was going on and actively protected the abusers is pretty fucking horrific. But to go one step further and start suggesting it wasn't even child abuse is beyond anything I can type.

 

This is what religion does to people. I don't know you, I'm sure you're not an altogether terrible person, but your mind has been so infected by this institution that you would rather cover up and brush off child rape as "Pedastry" instead of admitting what you know to be true.

 

Imagine it wasn't the church, but a private provider of childcare who had these abuse claims against it. Would you still brush it off as most of them being "sexually mature"? Or would you screaming for the management and abusers to face justice?

[craegDAMH]

 

 

Robbojunior makes a good point, there is lots science cant explain.

 

Where did the unvierse come from and why, for start.

 

Increasingly science is becoming a religion of its own.

 

Scientists currently claim that 80%+ of the universe is made up of what they call dark matter. No-one has ever seen this dark matter, we are just supposed to believe in it because scientists need this article of faith (make no mistake, thats what it is) in order to make their theories work.

 

And the reason they often need fudges like this is because they try to make new information fit existing models (the big bang is the current model), even if it doesnt.

 

Dark matter has been credited with both constraining the size of the universe, and expanding it (two opposite effects).

 

Increasingly science is speculative and with the modern "celebrity scientists" (hawking, dawkins, the guy out of D-Ream etc) people lap up anything they say as unerring fact.

 

Credulity towards a scientist instead of a priest is still credulity.

 

There are questions science can't answer right now, they will be answered eventually. There are also questions which science will probably never be able to answer, the "why does the universe exist" question probably being one of them. But just because we don't have an answer doesn't mean we should just make stuff up.

 

As for your dark matter comment. Evidence =/= "seeing". It is possible to have evidence for something without being able to see it. I'm not a physicist so I'm not going to embarrass myself by trying to talk about dark matter.

 

The difference between credulity towards scientists and credulity towards priests is that if a scientist comes across new information then the theory is updated, whereas a priests just comes across young boys.

[robbojunior]

 

There are questions science can't answer right now, they will be answered eventually. There are also questions which science will probably never be able to answer, the "why does the universe exist" question probably being one of them. But just because we don't have an answer doesn't mean we should just make stuff up.

 

As for your dark matter comment. Evidence =/= "seeing". It is possible to have evidence for something without being able to see it. I'm not a physicist so I'm not going to embarrass myself by trying to talk about dark matter.

 

The difference between credulity towards scientists and credulity towards priests is that if a scientist comes across new information then the theory is updated, whereas a priests just comes across young boys.

Agreed, I might have know. CS would jump on my point to try and justify belief in fairies but my point was simply that it's as foolish to believe in God despite all evidence to the contrary as it is to believe only in what science can prove.

[Ke1t]

Not often you'll see someone defend child-rape so openly and vociferously.

[The Hulk]

I think CS Sheep could be Bible John

[Jigot]

Not often you'll see someone defend child-rape so openly and vociferously.

 

I had to read it 3 times as I thought I had read it wrong, hoped I had read it wrong.

 

Mental

[chaos_defrost]

 

The vast majority of victims were sexually mature males - i.e they had adult bodies.

 

(Most people go through puberty around ages 11-12.)

 

You were right to pick me up for saying 90% were sexually mature, that was an error I made (I would never lie intentionally, but am capable of being wrong or making a typo).

 

But the fact remains, the majority of victims were sexually mature males - that is the truth.

 

The victim profile according to John Jay was:

 

81% victims male, 19% victims female

 

22% victims younger than 10

51% of victims aged between 11 and 14 (age 11 is the lower end of when puberty starts).

27% of victims aged 15 - 17

 

Most victims were sexually mature (post-puberty) males. Its a fact. People can grandstand all they like, but they cant change the facts.

 

Wtfs wrong with you?

 

Seriously.

[fatjim]

Agreed, I might have know. CS would jump on my point to try and justify belief in fairies but my point was simply that it's as foolish to believe in God despite all evidence to the contrary as it is to believe only in what science can prove.

 

 

To be fair there isn't really that much evidence that God doesn't exist. It's just that there isn't very much that he does exist either. Just leaps of faith and filling in the gaps with god

[Tommy]

Wtfs wrong with you?

 

Seriously.

 

It's his upbringing.

I blame the parents.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

Are you suggesting then it's OK to fuck a young girl if she's started having periods?

 

No, not in the slightest. Show me where I have said anything remotely like that.

 

I have at no point defended or tried to mitigate these crimes. I have repeatedly condemned them.

 

The only point I am making is that its incorrect to refer to as paedophilia, because (based on the most common victim profile) mostly the crimes were pedestary.

 

Thats all. Nothing else. Insisting upon accuracy when describing a crime doesnt constitute condoning it.

 

Anyone who suggests I am defending sexual crimes against children is either an idiot, a lying cunt or at the wind up (we all know its the latter).

[Clydeside_Sheep]

So once they are 12+ it's fair game?!

No - thats completely your own invention.

 

I have not said anything remotely like that.

 

I have repeatedly condemned the crimes. I am only asking we describe them accurately. As I have repeatedly said, poroperly understanding a crime is key to preventing its reoccurance.

 

Imagine it wasn't the church, but a private provider of childcare who had these abuse claims against it. Would you still brush it off as most of them being "sexually mature"? Or would you screaming for the management and abusers to face justice?

At no point have I "brushed off" the crimes. I am only asking we describe them accurately.

 

All victims of sexual abuse deserve justice, regardless of context.

 

All abusers deserve to be convicted, regardless of occupation or status.