WTF... Molestation Of Tens Of Thousands Of Little Children!

[Reason]

WTF...

YouTube - Molestation Of Tens Of Thousands Of Little Children At The Hands Of Priest! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qxEChcM7OI)

[DapperDan]

Vatican sucks.

[dannno]

It's stupid to make Priests remain celibate, most men want to have sex with women and have no desire to become Priests because of this.. that means the few people left either have really low sex drives or have sex drives geared towards children or other men.

If you allowed married men to become Priests, then you open up the sector to the vast majority of men, men who won't have any interest in having sex with children.

It's almost like they wanted this to become a problem and made that rule so that the Church would fail.

[Reason]

It's stupid to make Priests remain celibate, most men want to have sex with women and have no desire to become Priests because of this.. that means the few people left either have really low sex drives or have sex drives geared towards children or other men.

If you allowed married men to become Priests, then you open up the sector to the vast majority of men, men who won't have any interest in having sex with children.

It's almost like they wanted this to become a problem and made that rule so that the Church would fail.

I will never comprehend how someone can be sexually attracted to a child...

[Pauls' Revere]

No faith in governemnt

No faith in banks

No faith in the churches

No faith in Wall St.

No faith in Unions

WTF is left?

[dannno]

I will never comprehend how someone can be sexually attracted to a child...

Ya and I'll never comprehend how a dude can be sexually attracted to another dude. But it happens as well.

In fact, the vast majority of people who are sexually attracted to children were victims of molestation as children. It's not an excuse, but when you make that correlation you realize that the vast majority of the people who commit this heinous crime are doing so because they were victims of the same heinous crime.. So ya they should be separated from society, however a lot of people have the reaction that they need to some how experience the pain that they caused their victim and relish in the thought that they may be sexually assaulted in prison or even wish they be executed. Well, as we just discussed, they already HAVE felt the pain of their victim, and whoever is making the statement more often than not has not felt the pain that the victim nor the aggressor/past victim has felt. Bitter irony for ya.

[dannno]

In fact I'd bet a lot of Priests who molested children were molested by their Priest as children. Like handing down morally depraved disgusting right of passage, the methods of molesting children were passed down and the practice seemingly became more viral as the knowledge spread... Of course that doesn't mean you have to molest kids if you were molested, but if a Priest molests like 10 of his alter boys over time, and maybe more, a few of them might become Priests and it becomes exponential...

Ya the reproductive system causes a lot of havoc in society, that's for sure. Even in straight relationships. Some might even say especially in straight relationships. But that's another debate for another thread.

[dannno]

This thread currently has 6 replies and 66 views :eek:

[idirtify]

In fact, the vast majority of people who are sexually attracted to children were victims of molestation as children.

You hit the nail on the head, have said what typically goes unsaid, and have exposed the “virus”. Even sex researchers refrain from dwelling on this moist uncomfortable truth; they usually don’t want to go much further than calling it the “cycle of abuse”. Jack’s estimate of “tens of thousands” is likely an UNDERestimation. You’ll understand why after pondering the math a little more. If pedophilia (or at least MOST of it) is spread through the cycle of abuse, then it grows exponentially. In fact, I predict that this thread will not be very popular; you should figure out why after said pondering.

[silus]

Maybe we can ween priests off little boys and slowly move them towards prostitutes and whores. If it became public that the priest was involved in a sex scandal most people would be relieved to find out it was with a hooker.

[idirtify]

In fact I'd bet a lot of Priests who molested children were molested by their Priest as children. Like handing down morally depraved disgusting right of passage, the methods of molesting children were passed down and the practice seemingly became more viral as the knowledge spread... Of course that doesn't mean you have to molest kids if you were molested, but if a Priest molests like 10 of his alter boys over time, and maybe more, a few of them might become Priests and it becomes exponential...



A victim sure doesn’t have to become a priest in order to molest. For example, check out the most recent news about the Boy Scouts. And I imagine other religions/denominations are not that much less abusive than Catholicism. From what I saw in the 60s and 70s, the Lutherans are certainly not.

As far as how many victims become offenders as adults is not known, but I suspect it’s a big percentage. I imagine it depends on the severity of the victim’s abuse and their response. I imagine most (all?) of the victims who had orgasms during their abuse either become active pedophiles, or at least have the preference/tendency. The cycle of abuse proves (whether experts will admit it or not) that sexual preference can be permanently imprinted; can be the result of nurture rather than nature. That’s why it’s both epidemic and silent. It’s a self-protecting affliction; because as soon as you are infected, you will likely start infecting others. Since victims often start preying on others while they are still children, they already have their own guilt to protect by the time they understand what they are doing. It’s a most horrible crime for the victim, since a criminal forces a life-long sexual preference on him.

Danno, for you and I and the few others who escaped victimization, the world is truly a combination of Count Dracula and The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If you don’t want to believe it’s that bad, just watch how few participate in this thread.

[idirtify]

It's stupid to make Priests remain celibate, most men want to have sex with women and have no desire to become Priests because of this.. that means the few people left either have really low sex drives or have sex drives geared towards children or other men.

If you allowed married men to become Priests, then you open up the sector to the vast majority of men, men who won't have any interest in having sex with children.

It's almost like they wanted this to become a problem and made that rule so that the Church would fail.

You may have a small point, but I really don’t think the celibacy is a lot to blame. I think there is almost as much child sex abuse in protestant denominations and in non-religious settings (schools, boy scouts, etc).

[romeno182]

imagine how many victims there have been in 1700 years of vatican rule, it goes in the millions, and not just sexual abuse, but psichological and phisical as well.. all in all religions are one of the greates evils created by men.. SAD

[dwdollar]

I think this is indicative of society as a whole and not the Catholic church. Degenerates are everywhere, and are an increasing percentage of the population. They seek out institutions where it's easy to hide their dark desires. We should expect more of them as society continues to break down.



...

[Pete_00]

Wow, the homosexual agenda is out in full force pretending they care...what about the cases of homosexual sexual violence and harrasment against children? You know, the ones that never make the mainstream news?

PS - The **** agenda doesnt seem to understand that the priests were ***** themselfs...

[USAFCapt]

Cafferty consistently brings it.

[pacelli]

No faith in governemnt

No faith in banks

No faith in the churches

No faith in Wall St.

No faith in Unions

WTF is left?

Right where you started. Yourself! :)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No faith in governemnt

No faith in banks

No faith in the churches

No faith in Wall St.

No faith in Unions

WTF is left?

Why would you have faith in a bank? It's a business. It might be overly regulated, they may virtually be regulated utility companies, but they are still businesses. It's retarded to have faith in a business. You're there to either, a. make money off crappy apy, or b. get a loan.

church? waste of time, there is no god

Wall St. is for investing. having faith in them is akin to having faith in gambling. not good. wall st. are for investing strategies so you can make some $$$.

Unions? They have their use in a free market, but in this environment they're being used as vehicles for anti-business activities. It's truly sickening

[TonySutton]

Wow, the homosexual agenda is out in full force pretending they care...what about the cases of homosexual sexual violence and harrasment against children? You know, the ones that never make the mainstream news?

PS - The **** agenda doesnt seem to understand that the priests were ***** themselfs...

Pedophilia is about power and control, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. The gays know this and this is why they are coming out against this. Not because they are gay but because they are humans with emotions.

Most of these priests are not gay, they are pedophiles. There is a difference.

[noxagol]

Pedophilia is about power and control, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. The gays know this and this is why they are coming out against this. Not because they are gay but because they are humans with emotions.

Most of these priests are not gay, they are pedophiles. There is a difference.

It is more about the innocence really. Pedophiles are mostly attracted to the perceived innocence of a child.

[Pete_00]

Pedophilia is about power and control, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. The gays know this and this is why they are coming out against this. Not because they are gay but because they are humans with emotions.

Most of these priests are not gay, they are pedophiles. There is a difference.

The vast majority of victims were boys and accusations of homosexuality against priests are as old as accusations of pedophilia.

But the accusations of homosexuality never make the mainstream for some reason...

Double standards at work, "Matthew Shephard vs Jason Shepard" : http://www.valuesvoternews.com/2009/12/matthew-shephard-and-jason-shepard.html BTW...it turns out one of the murderers was homosexual himself...go figure...

Jesse Dirkhising, 13 year old boy sodomized to death and the strange behaviour of the media: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14852

[Freedom 4 all]

No faith in governemnt

No faith in banks

No faith in the churches

No faith in Wall St.

No faith in Unions

WTF is left?

Have faith is yourself, your family, your friends and an individual relationship with your God.

[TER]

It's stupid to make Priests remain celibate, most men want to have sex with women and have no desire to become Priests because of this.. that means the few people left either have really low sex drives or have sex drives geared towards children or other men.

If you allowed married men to become Priests, then you open up the sector to the vast majority of men, men who won't have any interest in having sex with children.

It's almost like they wanted this to become a problem and made that rule so that the Church would fail.

I hope the Vatican reverses it decision on not allowing married men into the priesthood. Originally, this was not the case (several of the Apostles were married, for example), as well as many of the greatest saints of the Church- bishops included. This tradition and practice has remained in the Orthodox Church where a married man may be ordained. Within the Orthodox Church, such accusations of pedophile by priests is almost nonexistent.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I don't buy it. The numbers are unbelievable.

Priest molests kids - I believe that part, but at a rate of molesting one kid a day it would take 3 years to molest 1,000, 30 years to molest 10,000 and 60 years to molest 20,000.

Also, next time you are in church, do a head count of kids. 50? 100? How on earth does he even have access to 20,000+ DIFFERENT children?

-t

[idirtify]

Why would you have faith in a bank? It's a business. It might be overly regulated, they may virtually be regulated utility companies, but they are still businesses. It's retarded to have faith in a business. You're there to either, a. make money off crappy apy, or b. get a loan.

church? waste of time, there is no god

Wall St. is for investing. having faith in them is akin to having faith in gambling. not good. wall st. are for investing strategies so you can make some $$$.

Unions? They have their use in a free market, but in this environment they're being used as vehicles for anti-business activities. It's truly sickening

You left out the LEAST trustworthy: government.

[reduen]

How can you guys make any excuses for these animals!?!?!? :mad:

There is no excuse for this type of behavior period! These men are of satan and he is the father of these people indeed! "Assuredly I say to you that whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

I tell you now, get out of the catholic church! Those of you who still remain are being led to the slaughter!

[romeno182]

I don't buy it. The numbers are unbelievable.

Priest molests kids - I believe that part, but at a rate of molesting one kid a day it would take 3 years to molest 1,000, 30 years to molest 10,000 and 60 years to molest 20,000.

Also, next time you are in church, do a head count of kids. 50? 100? How on earth does he even have access to 20,000+ DIFFERENT children?

-t


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/irel-m26.shtml

here you have how this numbers came up

[reduen]

I don't buy it. The numbers are unbelievable.

Priest molests kids - I believe that part, but at a rate of molesting one kid a day it would take 3 years to molest 1,000, 30 years to molest 10,000 and 60 years to molest 20,000.

Also, next time you are in church, do a head count of kids. 50? 100? How on earth does he even have access to 20,000+ DIFFERENT children?

-t

This is how!!!!!!

"Catholic News Service reported that, by 2008, the U.S. church had "trained 5.8 million children to recognize and report abuse."

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

[MelissaWV]

The vast majority of victims were boys and accusations of homosexuality against priests are as old as accusations of pedophilia.

But the accusations of homosexuality never make the mainstream for some reason...



The vast majority of victims being boys does not surprise me; they are most "available." Keep in mind the timeframe for many of these alleged acts, and the nations in which they occur, and realize that being an altar boy was/is a source of pride. There are very, VERY, few altar girls. Sutton is correct that these kinds of crimes are far more about power than actual sex, especially when very young children are involved. If you don't believe so, ask yourself if you can really consider a grown man who has sex with a 7-year-old girl to be "heterosexual." The child has no traits whatsoever to distinguish them as a sexually-available woman, simply the anatomy to distinguish herself as female. The label of "heterosexual" for such a preference is questionable.

Accusations of homosexuality make the news from time to time, as do "accusations" of heterosexuality. There was a "scandal" not too long ago where a priest was photographed on a beach with a single mother, and they were touching and kissing and whatnot. It became a big deal. There are similar "scandals" that show up from time to time involving heterosexual priests, but it doesn't generally involve all the intrigue and potential covering up that's gone on here.

[Southron]

I hope the Vatican reverses it decision on not allowing married men into the priesthood. Originally, this was not the case (several of the Apostles were married, for example), as well as many of the greatest saints of the Church- bishops included. This tradition and practice has remained in the Orthodox Church where a married man may be ordained. Within the Orthodox Church, such accusations of pedophile by priests is almost nonexistent.

Yes. This will probably cure most of these incidents. This policy was never a command in the Bible but only to those who were able to deal with not being married was it recommended.

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by TodaysEpistleReading
I hope the Vatican reverses it decision on not allowing married men into the priesthood.


Yes. This will probably cure most of these incidents.

LOL.

[tmosley]

It is my understanding that this stuff is all genetic, and comes from genetic survival strategies. Gays are gay by birth. The fact that they don't reproduce is made up for by the increased fertility of their sisters (in the case of gay men), or their brothers (in the case of lesbians). Pedophilia is a strategy by which a man chooses a partner at a young age, and maintains that relationship until they reach puberty. The choice of boys vs. girls strikes me as fetishism and/or the inability of the genes to code for sexual desire toward primary sex characteristics (the overall form of a male child is too similar to that of a female child).

There is no crime under the sun other than the involuntary application of force, either against body or property. If one believes in such an axiom, which underlies natural law and libertarianism, then one can not rule that homosexuality or pedophilia are crimes in an of themselves. Only the force that is employed against the unwilling can be considered a crime.

I was have been torn by such ideas (I started thinking about them when men who seemed fairly innocent to me were being caught and humiliated on national television on "To Catch a Predator"). How can one prevent pedophiles from having sex with children while obeying the non-aggression principle, and observing the rights of both the adult and the child?

I think the solution to this is to treat a child as property of the parents, at least until such time as the child is willing and capable of expressing that that is not his or her desire, at which point the child can be liberated from the ownership of their parents (and those who are incapable of ever expressing such desires, especially the mentally or severely physically deficient, can remain as the "property" of their parents or guardians). As such, the parent would be responsible for expressing consent, and sex with a non-emancipated child absent parental consent (rare to the point of non-existence, save under the most extreme of circumstances) remains a crime in a manner logically consistent with natural rights. Of course, consensual sex between adults is always legal, as there is no chance of involuntary force being applied.

[dannno]

How can you guys make any excuses for these animals!?!?!? :mad:

There is no excuse for this type of behavior period! These men are of satan and he is the father of these people indeed! "Assuredly I say to you that whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

I tell you now, get out of the catholic church! Those of you who still remain are being led to the slaughter!

LOL, nobody here is defending their actions, but if you would literally just calm down, think rationally for a minute and realize that these "men of Satan" that you speak of are actually most likely victims of the same crime you are blasting on about, you would realize that they have likely already gone through much worse than you can imagine. These "men of Satan" are only that way because they were exposed to it as children, and that part isn't their fault.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to end pedophilia, it means you need to fucking calm down and think about it more rationally.

[Pete_00]

Website with plenty of references to proper studies and scientific evidence, it covers everything, from the fact that homosexuals have pedophile tendencies to the lie that pedophiles who abuse boys are not homosexuals:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

The core of all this is homosexuality, period.

If you want to bash religion for this stop being an hypocrit and bash homosexuality too. Thats why all this homosexuals pretending they care make me laugh, its not about the kids, its about you and your need to conquer everything. Society in ancient Greece, Roman Empire and Weimar Germany did nothing to stop them and they ended up regreting it, our microchips will not make us any different.

Libertarianism is probably the only thing that can save us from disaster but if it fails and i have to choose between Marxism v2.0 (this time they will not only tolerate filth they will actually promote it) and Evangelical Theocracy bring on the Theocracy please.

[M House]

I can't really say anything positive about child molesters. Sure they may be victims themselves and its a mental disease or something. However, they are always likely to be repeat offenders no matter what you do. It's fucking ridiculous. The only thing that seems to do squat against them is castration.

[MelissaWV]

Website with plenty of references to proper studies and scientific evidence, it covers everything, from the fact that homosexuals have pedophile tendencies to the lie that pedophiles who abuse boys are not homosexuals:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

The core of all this is homosexuality, period.

If you want to bash religion for this stop being an hypocrit and bash homosexuality too. Thats why all this homosexuals pretending they care make me laugh, its not about the kids, its about you and your need to conquer everything. Society in ancient Greece, Roman Empire and Weimar Germany did nothing to stop them and they ended up regreting it, our microchips will not make us any different.

Libertarianism is probably the only thing that can save us from disaster but if it fails and i have to choose between Marxism v2.0 (this time they will not only tolerate filth they will actually promote it) and Evangelical Theocracy bring on the Theocracy please.


So molestors that touch little girls are just... denying their real desires to touch little boys? Women who touch little boys are what... gays in disguise?

Do you understand how bonkers you sound?

[dannno]

So molestors that touch little girls are just... denying their real desires to touch little boys? Women who touch little boys are what... gays in disguise?

Do you understand how bonkers you sound?

Ya studies that come from traditionalvalues.com that have to do with sex should be highly suspect... People who go off about traditional values often don't know anything about sex. I don't know if it is because they have a low sex drive and it doesn't matter that much to them and they don't understand why it matters so much to others or what.

If we really want to go back to 'traditional values', then shouldn't older men be able to marry 14 year old girls? And shouldn't that website be promoting it? You'd think so.

[dannno]

The only thing that seems to do squat against them is castration.

I've heard that doesn't even work in most cases so I'd say only voluntarily.

[Reason]

Pedophilia is about power and control, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. The gays know this and this is why they are coming out against this. Not because they are gay but because they are humans with emotions.

Most of these priests are not gay, they are pedophiles. There is a difference.


So molestors that touch little girls are just... denying their real desires to touch little boys? Women who touch little boys are what... gays in disguise?

Do you understand how bonkers you sound?

Don't even bother trying to use logic when talking to Pete_00, it's just a waste of time.

[M House]

Really, jeez why can't they like something normal like girl on girl or bondage?

[Andrew-Austin]

It's stupid to make Priests remain celibate, most men want to have sex with women and have no desire to become Priests because of this.. that means the few people left either have really low sex drives or have sex drives geared towards children or other men.

If you allowed married men to become Priests, then you open up the sector to the vast majority of men, men who won't have any interest in having sex with children.

It's almost like they wanted this to become a problem and made that rule so that the Church would fail.

Reversing this would be admitting their dogma on celibate priests would be wrong, it would be admitting they were wrong, this can't happen.


Website with plenty of references to proper studies and scientific evidence, it covers everything, from the fact that homosexuals have pedophile tendencies to the lie that pedophiles who abuse boys are not homosexuals:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

The core of all this is homosexuality, period.

If you want to bash religion for this stop being an hypocrit and bash homosexuality too. Thats why all this homosexuals pretending they care make me laugh, its not about the kids, its about you and your need to conquer everything. Society in ancient Greece, Roman Empire and Weimar Germany did nothing to stop them and they ended up regreting it, our microchips will not make us any different.

Libertarianism is probably the only thing that can save us from disaster but if it fails and i have to choose between Marxism v2.0 (this time they will not only tolerate filth they will actually promote it) and Evangelical Theocracy bring on the Theocracy please.


You're nuts buddy, go get some fresh air.

[Brian4Liberty]

Not to defend the criminal Priests in any way, but it should be pointed out that what's interesting about this story is that it has become open season on Christians in the media...Christian churches, "Christian" militias, "racist" Tea Parties...guess who the leftists will be adding to the list next?

Back to the point about the molesters, this is a failure of the Police. These are criminal acts, and the Police should be all over it. What if this story was about some employees of Microsoft molesting kids? Would the media be calling for the head of Bill Gates? Boycotting Windows? Even with cover-ups involved, the lawyers at MS could probably come up with an excuse that the media would buy...as long as they turn over the suspects to the Police.

[lester1/2jr]

as much or more damage was done to the church by them bellyaching about being "slandered" than the actual abuse scandal

[Pete_00]

You're nuts buddy, go get some fresh air.

I KNOW what im saying, because someone close to me that used to work in New York and LA show business, told me that the anglo-american show business and media is completly overun by homosexuals and commies. And its not limited to intertainment.

You want crazy? :D

http://blog.singersroom.com/celebs/index.php/2009/10/30/say-what-omarion-talks-rihanna-dark-side/

"With God and the industry, it’s really dark. The dark side is having to get in, there’s a certain submission you need to have. Just like a gang [initiation], so to speak. You might have to do something against your moral code."

And what if i tell you that this "gang initiation" is caught on tape and thats how they control people? Actors, musicians...even pundits and political commentators :D What if i tell you that Clooney´s or Brad Pitt´s or anyone else have to pay "the tax" to get contracts? :D

And more...remember when Bill O´Reilly was in the news regarding a certain tape futuring sexual acts? There is more than one tape let me assure you...and "they" hang those tapes over his head... :D

And politicians? Ohhh, set up "honey traps", high tech cameras here and there, promote only people that are on the blackmail files...and you have a good amount of control in no time. :D

You think im crazy?

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/the_colbert_reportmon_thurs.html (watch the video)

Ask Dan Maffei´s "evil" twin who is crazy? You or me? :D

Maffei: "I enjoy cocaine because it gives me joy" / "I enjoy the company of prostitutes for the following reasons: it represses women, it's generally illegal ...."

Communist Central´s Stephen Colbert: "That's a career-ending statement,"

:D it sure is Colbert...it sure is... thank God its his "evil" twin speaking and not the real Maffei... :D

Somethings are right in front of your faces but people cant see sh*t anymore. :D

Think im crazy? Well its a crazy thing this International Communist Conspiracy :D

[reduen]

LOL, nobody here is defending their actions, but if you would literally just calm down, think rationally for a minute and realize that these "men of Satan" that you speak of are actually most likely victims of the same crime you are blasting on about, you would realize that they have likely already gone through much worse than you can imagine. These "men of Satan" are only that way because they were exposed to it as children, and that part isn't their fault.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to end pedophilia, it means you need to fucking calm down and think about it more rationally.


I "need" nobody to tell me to calm down and least of all you danno. Truth is, you have no idea why these men are doing this and to pretend anything different is senseless..

Speculate if you wish and I will speak out against this in whatever manner I choose. Coming from someone with personal experiences in this area I can tell you that there is absolutely no excuse for this to happen!

[Pete_00]

Don't even bother trying to use logic when talking to Pete_00, it's just a waste of time.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/217896/february-04-2009/exclusive---utah-s-3rd

Logic? You get a US Congressman going to a "simple" comedy show and getting his face covered with some white substance that obviously stings like hell in a most humilliating and dishonorable way...and yet you think there is nothing strange about it... :D Maybe its you that has no "logic" in your brain anymore? :D Just 20 years ago if such scene was displayed on TV the entire population would be like: "WTH was that?!" now, with the massive process of demoralization and stupidification, they cant see anything in front of their eyes anymore.

Didnt Jason Chaffetz once said that we were not told the whole truth regarding 911? He seems to be quiet now...ohh wait im just crazy :D

When i say that between Marxism v2.0 and Theocracy i choose theocracy in a heartbeat im using plenty of logic...but some people dont know what logic is anymore.

PS - And no "Reason", you dont care for the victims of the HOMOSEXUAL priests, you only care for your gay agenda...but you shouldnt care anymore, your gay agenda is mighty powerful, go ask any star in Hollywood or intertainment industry...even politics...

[MelissaWV]

... and yet my questions remain unanswered by Pete.

Go figure.

[M House]

Actually pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuals. You could watch that to catch a predator show and realize that. For some reason a variety of individuals of a variety of orientations and backrounds jump at the opportunity to nail a prepubescent.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Actually pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuals. You could watch that to catch a predator show and realize that. For some reason a variety of individuals of a variety of orientations and backrounds jump at the opportunity to nail a prepubescent.

Homosexual pedophilia is pedophilia x 2 IMO

[paperplane]

i think thats why they have deacons... best of both worlds..

[Pete_00]

So molestors that touch little girls are just... denying their real desires to touch little boys? Women who touch little boys are what... gays in disguise?

Do you understand how bonkers you sound?

What im saying is that there is a clear homosexual "thing" behind all this, thats all. Hypocrits talk about the fact they are priests but say nothing about the fact that they are homosexuals too.

And YES, man -> male kid its an homosexual thing.

[MelissaWV]

What im saying is that there is a clear homosexual "thing" behind all this, thats all. Hypocrits talk about the fact they are priests but say nothing about the fact that they are homosexuals too.

And YES, man -> male kid its an homosexual thing.

Since this is true, I am disgusted by you as a heterosexual male. Rape is entirely your fault, and if you pretend to be against it, let's face it: you're a hypocrite. To talk about the alarming rape statistics in this country, and not acknowledge that it's a heterosexual male thing, is unacceptable. Every time rape is mentioned, heterosexual males must be called names and blamed for the actions of a select few.

Right?

I wouldn't want for you to be inconsistent.

[BlackTerrel]

It's stupid to make Priests remain celibate, most men want to have sex with women and have no desire to become Priests because of this.. that means the few people left either have really low sex drives or have sex drives geared towards children or other men.

That was my initial gut reaction as well. But I have heard that Priests aren't necessarily more likely to molest kids than the leaders of any other denomination. Jews, Mormons, Protestants have had their scandals as well.

Difference is because the Catholic Church is hierarchical they covered it up for many decades. When other denominations had these issues the offending parties were prosecuted and removed from their positions. When Priests did it they were simply transferred to another Parish.

[dannno]

What im saying is that there is a clear homosexual "thing" behind all this, thats all. Hypocrits talk about the fact they are priests but say nothing about the fact that they are homosexuals too.

And YES, man -> male kid its an homosexual thing.

No, that's completely untrue. There are plenty of pedophiles who aren't into adult males, thus they are not homosexual.

Being straight, gay or a pedophile are all completely separate things to distinguish somebody by...

[silentshout]

Yes, they need to allow priests to marry, like they did in the original days of the church. They stopped doing that because the Vatican was worried about a wife or kids inheriting the church's wealth.

[Mini-Me]

It is my understanding that this stuff is all genetic, and comes from genetic survival strategies. Gays are gay by birth. The fact that they don't reproduce is made up for by the increased fertility of their sisters (in the case of gay men), or their brothers (in the case of lesbians). Pedophilia is a strategy by which a man chooses a partner at a young age, and maintains that relationship until they reach puberty. The choice of boys vs. girls strikes me as fetishism and/or the inability of the genes to code for sexual desire toward primary sex characteristics (the overall form of a male child is too similar to that of a female child).

There is no crime under the sun other than the involuntary application of force, either against body or property. If one believes in such an axiom, which underlies natural law and libertarianism, then one can not rule that homosexuality or pedophilia are crimes in an of themselves. Only the force that is employed against the unwilling can be considered a crime.

I was have been torn by such ideas (I started thinking about them when men who seemed fairly innocent to me were being caught and humiliated on national television on "To Catch a Predator"). How can one prevent pedophiles from having sex with children while obeying the non-aggression principle, and observing the rights of both the adult and the child?

I think the solution to this is to treat a child as property of the parents, at least until such time as the child is willing and capable of expressing that that is not his or her desire, at which point the child can be liberated from the ownership of their parents (and those who are incapable of ever expressing such desires, especially the mentally or severely physically deficient, can remain as the "property" of their parents or guardians). As such, the parent would be responsible for expressing consent, and sex with a non-emancipated child absent parental consent (rare to the point of non-existence, save under the most extreme of circumstances) remains a crime in a manner logically consistent with natural rights. Of course, consensual sex between adults is always legal, as there is no chance of involuntary force being applied.

I'm hesitant to respond to your post, because we'll be taking the discussion somewhat off topic, but this thread has kind of become a shit-show anyway thanks to Pete_00, so whatever. ;)

Anyway, you might want to reevaluate that: A lot of sexual abuse comes at the hands of the parents in the first place. Treating children legally as "property" of their parents is a gross oversimplification and perversion of the proper relationship between parents and children, and because of that it would have a lot of reaaaaaaally, reaaaaaally bad results.

The truth is, children are still fundamentally self-owners, but because their brains aren't fully developed, they're incapable of knowing what's best for themselves or understanding contractual agreements. They might fight a parent kicking and screaming about some minor issue, but they still recognize the truth on a more fundamental level, and they're willing to cede fine-grained control over their lives to their guardians, whom they implicitly trust to protect them from harm. Parenthood is more or less an informal and automatic general power of attorney, I suppose...and that certainly gives parents the latitude to deal with other adults who abuse their children. However, when the attorneys (parents) themselves abuse their privileges and take advantage of their clients, there should still be hell to pay. Formalizing the parent-child relationship as power of attorney (and not as property ownership) makes it easy to prosecute clear aggression, such as murder and torture.

However, it's hard to qualify parental abuse in the general sense: We accept that stupid adults should be able to make stupid agreements with each other, because they should know better. Otherwise, the rest of us end up being subjected to coercive babysitting by other adults we don't know, who don't love us, who are often in a position of inferior knowledge and understanding than us anyway. However, this is not the case with children, because the whole "parenthood" thing is all about acknowledging that children are not yet capable of making contractual agreements themselves or assuming absolute control over their lives. For this very reason, children are not by themselves reliable judges of a parent's betrayal, because a child throwing a fit would equate grounding with parental abuse in the short term. Conversely, truly abusive parents can warp and twist their child into accepting horrendous betrayals (such as in the case of molestation). At the same time, we also can't allow legislators, majority opinion, or a panel of strangers to have the final say over all parenting matters either, because then people end up micro-managing other people's parenting. (This is at its worst when arbitrary standards are codified into law.)

Ultimately, there's no easy answer here. As much as most of us here hate arbitrary rules that don't cleanly follow from fundamental principles, I think it may be necessary to implicitly understand that when children are involved, certain acts (such as molestation) obviously cross the line into predatory aggression even when a child "agrees" to them. Judging parental abuse (or abuse of power of attorney in the general sense) is necessarily subjective, so aside from our short list, parents obviously need wide latitude (the consequence of denying this is our current situation, with CPS harrassing non-conforming parents to meet their quota and feed the system)...but I do think that the definition of aggression should be applied a bit more broadly to children than to adults, in the sense that it should include obviously predatory "agreements."

[dr. hfn]

No faith in governemnt

No faith in banks

No faith in the churches

No faith in Wall St.

No faith in Unions

WTF is left?

faith in Ron Paul? yourself? libertarians?

[Mini-Me]

faith in Ron Paul? yourself? libertarians?

Trust principles, not people. ;)
Faith in yourself is helpful though, and if you're feeling up to taking a risk, perhaps faith in friends and family as well. :D

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Trust principles, not people. ;)
Faith in yourself is helpful though, and if you're feeling up to taking a risk, perhaps faith in friends and family as well. :D

have faith in the free market :/ cos the free market is god! :cool:

[sharpsteve2003]

George W Bush had a hand in this too.

FTF Films - Protect The Children, Not The Church

This video contains scenes from the Lionsgate Film "Deliver Us from Evil"
YouTube - FTF Films - Protect The Children, Not The Church (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj6AiaFeyao)

[idirtify]

It is my understanding that this stuff is all genetic, and comes from genetic survival strategies. Gays are gay by birth. The fact that they don't reproduce is made up for by the increased fertility of their sisters (in the case of gay men), or their brothers (in the case of lesbians). Pedophilia is a strategy by which a man chooses a partner at a young age, and maintains that relationship until they reach puberty. The choice of boys vs. girls strikes me as fetishism and/or the inability of the genes to code for sexual desire toward primary sex characteristics (the overall form of a male child is too similar to that of a female child).

There is no crime under the sun other than the involuntary application of force, either against body or property. If one believes in such an axiom, which underlies natural law and libertarianism, then one can not rule that homosexuality or pedophilia are crimes in an of themselves. Only the force that is employed against the unwilling can be considered a crime.

I was have been torn by such ideas (I started thinking about them when men who seemed fairly innocent to me were being caught and humiliated on national television on "To Catch a Predator"). How can one prevent pedophiles from having sex with children while obeying the non-aggression principle, and observing the rights of both the adult and the child?

I think the solution to this is to treat a child as property of the parents, at least until such time as the child is willing and capable of expressing that that is not his or her desire, at which point the child can be liberated from the ownership of their parents (and those who are incapable of ever expressing such desires, especially the mentally or severely physically deficient, can remain as the "property" of their parents or guardians). As such, the parent would be responsible for expressing consent, and sex with a non-emancipated child absent parental consent (rare to the point of non-existence, save under the most extreme of circumstances) remains a crime in a manner logically consistent with natural rights. Of course, consensual sex between adults is always legal, as there is no chance of involuntary force being applied.

I can’t say I totally understand all your stuff about genes, but most pedophilia is NOT genetic – most of it is learned aggression via the cycle of abuse (the victim becomes a victimizer because he was victimized).

Let me say what I think Mini-Me is saying (which, if I’m right, I agree with): An adult having sex with a child IS certainly aggression. Since the child can not legitimately consent, the sex is non-consensual (an involuntary application of force against their body). Forget homosexuality. It’s pedophilia that we are talking about; and preventing it does not violate the NAP or anyone’s rights.

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by reduen
How can you guys make any excuses for these animals!?!?!?

There is no excuse for this type of behavior period! These men are of satan and he is the father of these people indeed! "Assuredly I say to you that whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

I tell you now, get out of the catholic church! Those of you who still remain are being led to the slaughter!


LOL, nobody here is defending their actions, but if you would literally just calm down, think rationally for a minute and realize that these "men of Satan" that you speak of are actually most likely victims of the same crime you are blasting on about, you would realize that they have likely already gone through much worse than you can imagine. These "men of Satan" are only that way because they were exposed to it as children, and that part isn't their fault.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to end pedophilia, it means you need to fucking calm down and think about it more rationally.

My goodness, NO reduen! We are not excusing pedophiles. We are (at least I am) only trying to explain what creates them. In fact, when you understand the cycle that causes them, they look even worse. They are the worst of the worst. They take an innocent child and forcefully (even though most of the time it is not physical force but psychological trickery / seduction) imprint for life a terrible sexual preference that is not genetic (or would ever have been their choice). They are basically incurable. Since the predatory preference is there for life, they can not be safely/totally rehabilitated. That bad part is how understanding the cycle automatically puts suspicion on all the victims. Many will start abusing before they even know what’s going on (right after they were abused). Once a child is taught this aggression and experienced orgasm, they can become quite aggressive little sex fiends (where the phrases “kid in candy store” and “child with new toy” are all too accurate). Understanding the cycle is the start of stopping the epidemic.

[NYgs23]

Looks like I'm gonna have to point out again that Catholic priests are statistically no more likely to molest minors than other groups. Therefore, the problem in the Church is not celibacy, it's not homosexuality, it's not even pedophilia (80% of the accusations involve post-pubescent minors). The problem was mismanagement by bishops of abuse accusations that did arise, allowing abusive priests to remain in contact with minors. But there is no unique or particular plague of sexual abuse within the Church.

Furthermore, a huge strides have been taken to correct the bureaucratic failures that allowed abusive priests to remain in contact with minors. The Pope himself has been at the forefront of these zero-tolerance reforms. Because of these new policies only six credible cases of sexual abuse by priests were reported in the US last year, a minute amount relative the number of US priests. Unfortunately, these facts are rarely mentioned in media. I'm sure Cafferty's not gonna mention them. Don't trust the media to report anything fairly, whether it's about the government or the Catholic Church.

[phill4paul]

I didn't bother to read through these threads. I will only make a comment.

If I were the parent of one of these children, or the uncle, or the god parent, the priest in question would not have had the chance to violate others.

This is not a failing of the church, this is a failing of the family and the community.

IMHO.

[idirtify]

Website with plenty of references to proper studies and scientific evidence, it covers everything, from the fact that homosexuals have pedophile tendencies to the lie that pedophiles who abuse boys are not homosexuals:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

The core of all this is homosexuality, period.

If you want to bash religion for this stop being an hypocrit and bash homosexuality too. Thats why all this homosexuals pretending they care make me laugh, its not about the kids, its about you and your need to conquer everything. Society in ancient Greece, Roman Empire and Weimar Germany did nothing to stop them and they ended up regreting it, our microchips will not make us any different.

Libertarianism is probably the only thing that can save us from disaster but if it fails and i have to choose between Marxism v2.0 (this time they will not only tolerate filth they will actually promote it) and Evangelical Theocracy bring on the Theocracy please.

I’ll decline your invitation to click on a “traditional values” website for info on homosexuality.

While men molesting boys is termed “homosexual pedophilia”, it really has nothing to do with genetic/natural homosexuality. While there are certainly many natural homosexual males who are also pedophiles, it’s only because they were abused as children. It’s probable that many adult male pedophiles are MORE attracted to effeminate boys.

So the whole thing can be confusing if you don’t understand the cycle and how it affects sexual preference.

[idirtify]

I can't really say anything positive about child molesters. Sure they may be victims themselves and its a mental disease or something. However, they are always likely to be repeat offenders no matter what you do. It's fucking ridiculous. The only thing that seems to do squat against them is castration.

all your points have merit.

[idirtify]

Not to defend the criminal Priests in any way, but it should be pointed out that what's interesting about this story is that it has become open season on Christians in the media...Christian churches, "Christian" militias, "racist" Tea Parties...guess who the leftists will be adding to the list next?

Back to the point about the molesters, this is a failure of the Police. These are criminal acts, and the Police should be all over it. What if this story was about some employees of Microsoft molesting kids? Would the media be calling for the head of Bill Gates? Boycotting Windows? Even with cover-ups involved, the lawyers at MS could probably come up with an excuse that the media would buy...as long as they turn over the suspects to the Police.

There are so many pedophiles, it’s always a miracle when ANY victims speak out. If you read what I’ve been saying about the epidemic and its cause, you’ll understand why.

[NYgs23]

Also, not all pedophiles (people sexually attracted to prepubescents) were involved in sexual activities as children. It seems to me that sexual attractions--like all psychological traits--come about through a combination of biological and environmental factors and attraction to prepubescents is no different.

[idirtify]

I "need" nobody to tell me to calm down and least of all you danno. Truth is, you have no idea why these men are doing this and to pretend anything different is senseless..

Speculate if you wish and I will speak out against this in whatever manner I choose. Coming from someone with personal experiences in this area I can tell you that there is absolutely no excuse for this to happen!

I totally understand your outrage. It’s well-directed, except when you imply that explaining the cause is the same as excusing it.

[NYgs23]

However, they are always likely to be repeat offenders no matter what you do.

I think this is also not exactly true. Released sex offenders actually have a relatively low recidivism compared to other released criminals (though sex offenders include many who did not commit crimes involving children).

Furthermore, many, if not most people who molest children are not actual pedophiles--they don't seem to possess longstanding sexual orientation towards children. They're only "situational" pedophiles, in that most homosexual sexual activity in prisons involves men who engage in exclusively heterosexual sexual activity outside.

[silus]

Looks like I'm gonna have to point out again that Catholic priests are statistically no more likely to molest minors than other groups. Therefore, the problem in the Church is not celibacy, it's not homosexuality, it's not even pedophilia (80% of the accusations involve post-pubescent minors). The problem was mismanagement by bishops of abuse accusations that did arise, allowing abusive priests to remain in contact with minors. But there is no unique or particular plague of sexual abuse within the Church.

Furthermore, a huge strides have been taken to correct the bureaucratic failures that allowed abusive priests to remain in contact with minors. The Pope himself has been at the forefront of these zero-tolerance reforms. Because of these new policies only six credible cases of sexual abuse by priests were reported in the US last year, a minute amount relative the number of US priests. Unfortunately, these facts are rarely mentioned in media. I'm sure Cafferty's not gonna mention them. Don't trust the media to report anything fairly, whether it's about the government or the Catholic Church.
WHAT in the HELL?

Respectfully, i'm going to have to call you out here. First off, you say Catholic priests are statistically no more likely to molest minors than other groups?? You moved on before you could support that with ANYTHING. That is a statement that needs some some citing, because right off the bat i can say with certainty you are wrong.

Secondly, you said the problem in the Church is not pedophilia because 80% of the accusations involve "post-pubescent minors"?? You are seriously willing to argue that because the child is 12 or 13 that the fully adult perpetrator is not a pedophile?!? :eek: At the very least what do you hope to accomplish arguing over semantics?

Thirdly, you state that ALL this is really indicative of a mismanagement problem, and that there was no "plague" of abuse taking place?? You are bringing absolutely zero evidence to the table. And I hope you realize that a "mismanagement" of accusations is a pretty good indicator that THERE IS a greater problem lurking beneath, and we are talking about decades and decades of your so-called mismanagement.

Lastly, I didn't really like how you tried to piggyback the media reporting the catholic church onto our disdain for how the media reports political issues. That just seemed dirty to me.

[idirtify]

Therefore, the problem in the Church is not ... even pedophilia (80% of the accusations involve post-pubescent minors).

Even though the DSM may disagree, “pedophilia” includes having sex with the “barely-pubescent”. One kind of pedophilia prefers the pre-pubescent; another kind prefers “barely-pubescent” (note that I did not say “post-pubescent”, since that would include fully-developed adults). The bottom line is: if you have a preference for sex with an “extreme minor” (barely developed), you are a pedophile (& were probably abused when you were that same stage of development). Note that I do not define pedophilia as an attraction to well-developed minors. Think about it…why would an adult PREFER to have sex with a barely-developed child?

[phill4paul]

I'll repeat my post one more time and add bold.




This is not a failing of the church, this is a failing of the family and the community.

[idirtify]

Also, not all pedophiles (people sexually attracted to prepubescents) were involved in sexual activities as children. It seems to me that sexual attractions--like all psychological traits--come about through a combination of biological and environmental factors and attraction to prepubescents is no different.

Your first sentence could be accurate enough (but how would you ever really know for sure that an adult never abused them as a child), but attraction to the prepubescent is FAR DIFFERENT. While theoretically there are natural pedophiles (I would probably argue against it), they are far outnumbered by cycle-of-abuse pedophiles.

[djinwa]

I didn't bother to read through these threads. I will only make a comment.

If I were the parent of one of these children, or the uncle, or the god parent, the priest in question would not have had the chance to violate others.

This is not a failing of the church, this is a failing of the family and the community.

IMHO.

Amen! Doesn't matter why or how they did it. Amazing that in this country we used to hang people for stealing cattle, and now when molesting kids happens, our first thought is to psychoanalyze the perpetrator. I imagine for every crime, you can find a reason they're doing it. Doesn't matter.

Used to be a dad's purpose was to protect his children. I will say that if anyone does something like this to my kid, I will eliminate whoever.

A guy near here named Joseph Duncan in 2005, saw some kids while driving down the freeway. Scoped out the place, tied up mom, her boyfriend, and an older son and beat them to death with a hammer. Took little sister and brother to the mountains where he raped both, and tortured and killed the boy. Made a videotape of it. The guy is still breathing. What the HE[[ is wrong with our country?

Yes, have compassion on the guy - he was probably molested, blah, blah blah. Doesn't matter. We know these monsters will commit these acts, and we allow it to happen, thus perpetuating the cycle. I say we all contribute to this by our silence.

We fill the prisons with dope smokers and let the molesters go free.

Here's a history of Joseph Duncan before he committed his last acts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III


Duncan has a long history as a violent sexual predator.

His first recorded sex crime occurred in 1978 in his hometown of Tacoma, Washington, when he was 15 years old. In that incident he raped a 9-year-old boy at gunpoint, and the following year he was arrested driving a stolen car.

He was sentenced as a juvenile and sent to Dyslin's Boys' ranch in Tacoma, where he told a therapist who was assigned to his case that he had bound and sexually assaulted six boys, according to a report by the Associated Press. He also told the therapist that he estimated that he had raped 13 younger boys by the time he was 16.[5]

In 1980 (also in Tacoma), Duncan stole a number of guns from a neighbor and then abducted a 14-year-old boy and sodomized him at gunpoint. Duncan was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but served 14 years then was released on parole and re-incarcerated for three more years for parole violations.[6]

In 2004, Duncan was charged with groping the genitals of a six-year-old boy. He was arrested in April 2005 in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. The judge granted bail at $15,000. A businessman in Fargo, North Dakota, Joe Crary, gave Duncan money for bail.[7] When freed, Duncan skipped bail.[8]

[idirtify]

I think this is also not exactly true. Released sex offenders actually have a relatively low recidivism compared to other released criminals (though sex offenders include many who did not commit crimes involving children).

Furthermore, many, if not most people who molest children are not actual pedophiles--they don't seem to possess longstanding sexual orientation towards children. They're only "situational" pedophiles, in that most homosexual sexual activity in prisons involves men who engage in exclusively heterosexual sexual activity outside.

I don’t need to refute your fist point cause you did it yourself.

Your second point is interesting, but not really significant. Even if pedophilia is not the offender’s dominant preference, it would HAVE to be a preference by definition - and the effect (and the cause) is the same.

[silus]

I didn't bother to read through these threads. I will only make a comment.

If I were the parent of one of these children, or the uncle, or the god parent, the priest in question would not have had the chance to violate others.

This is not a failing of the church, this is a failing of the family and the community.

IMHO.
Stop with the Rambo nonsense. You wouldn't have done shit. For the simple fact that you most likely would not know. And another thing. Do you have some rule against calling out failures from 2 groups at the same time?? Yes, hell fucking yes its a failure of the church, and whether or not its a failing of the family and community has NOTHING to do with that.

[idirtify]

I'll repeat my post one more time and add bold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phill4paul
This is not a failing of the church, this is a failing of the family and the community.

--------------------

That really does sound like you are excusing the offenders and blaming the victims.

[phill4paul]

Stop with the Rambo nonsense. You wouldn't have done shit. For the simple fact that you most likely would not know. And another thing. Do you have some rule against calling out failures from 2 groups at the same time?? Yes, hell fucking yes its a failure of the church, and whether or not its a failing of the family and community has NOTHING to do with that.

silus there was a pedophile in my Boy Scout troop. You know who took care of that problem. 14 year olds. No one believed the members that were molested. Certainly not the members of the church that sponsored the troop. But, we (children on the verge of manhood) drove this member out of town. Out of church. We did it in our own way. No we didn't bury him. But, I wish that I had the knowledge then that I'd known now. My only regret is we drove him someplace else.
So fuck you for assuming.

[NYgs23]

...you say Catholic priests are statistically no more likely to molest minors than other groups?? You moved on before you could support that with ANYTHING. That is a statement that needs some some citing...

Okay:

A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse (http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/plante.html)

Excerpt:
...the available research (which is quite good now) suggests that approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18).... although good data is hard to acquire, it appears that this 4% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%.


You are seriously willing to argue that because the child is 12 or 13 that the fully adult perpetrator is not a pedophile?!? :eek: At the very least what do you hope to accomplish arguing over semantics?

That's the technical definition of "pedophile": someone with sexual attraction to prepubescents. I'm not trying to make a major point of it.


I hope you realize that a "mismanagement" of accusations is a pretty good indicator that THERE IS a greater problem lurking beneath, and we are talking about decades and decades of your so-called mismanagement.

The problem was in how many bishops tended to react to abuse accusations, especially in the 60s and 70s. They thought the behavior could be corrected through therapy, which many people thought at the time, and they didn't take it seriously enough. The bureaucratic structure of the Church at the time also hindered cases from being dealt with effectively.


I didn't really like how you tried to piggyback the media reporting the catholic church onto our disdain for how the media reports political issues.

I think it's interesting how people who are generally skeptical of media reports seem to lose that skepticism on this issue. The media reporting on this issue has been abominable.

[silus]

silus there was a pedophile in my Boy Scout troop. You know who took care of that problem. 14 year olds. No one believed the members that were molested. Certainly not the members of the church that sponsored the troop. But, we (children on the verge of manhood) drove this member out of town. Out of church. We did it in our own way. No we didn't bury him. But, I wish that I had the knowledge then that I'd known now. My only regret is we drove him someplace else.
So fuck you for assuming.
I'm really confused as to what you thought I was assuming...:confused:

[NYgs23]

...attraction to the prepubescent is FAR DIFFERENT. While theoretically there are natural pedophiles (I would probably argue against it), they are far outnumbered by cycle-of-abuse pedophiles.

I don't see why attraction to prepubescents is "far different" than any other attraction. Do people have foot fetishes because, once, somebody sucked their toes without consent? Were folks into bestiality once raped by a dog? Were heterosexual men at one point sexually harassed by a voluptuous woman? Why should pedophilia be different?


Your second point is interesting, but not really significant. Even if pedophilia is not the offender’s dominant preference, it would HAVE to be a preference by definition - and the effect (and the cause) is the same.

So "situational homosexuals" who have gay sex in prison or on long ship journeys really are homosexual at the point? Well, I suppose you can define it that way, though most people wouldn't. Anyway I'm not sure what point you're trying to make of pedophilia in general.

[phill4paul]

I'm really confused as to what you thought I was assuming...:confused:


Stop with the Rambo nonsense. You wouldn't have done shit. For the simple fact that you most likely would not know. And another thing. Do you have some rule against calling out failures from 2 groups at the same time?? Yes, hell fucking yes its a failure of the church, and whether or not its a failing of the family and community has NOTHING to do with that.

I did know and as much as a 14 year old could I did "shit." It only had the effect of removing the pedophile from my community. But. at the time it was enough. These days he wouldn't make it that far. THAT'S how strongly opposed I am. Yes, it is a failure of the church. However, a church should be a reflection of the community. guess that is why I am an atheist that sometimes believes.:(

[michaelwise]

I renounced my Catholic religion 25 years ago when I researched and found out they are actually into Babylonian pagan rituals. It changed to paganism in 325AD at the Council of Nicea.

P.S.
Jesus is still my brother.

[NYgs23]

These days he wouldn't make it that far.

Vigilantism is wrong. Everyone has the right of due process.


Yes, it is a failure of the church.

I would say it was failure of individuals, many of the clergymen, but as you said there were also many parents, therapists, cops, and judges who made mistakes in dealing with these things, thereby allowing more acts of victimization to take place.

[NYgs23]

I renounced my Catholic religion 25 years ago when I researched and found out they are actually into Babylonian pagan rituals. It changed to paganism in 325AD at the Council of Nicea.

Who told you that? Jack Chick?

[phill4paul]

Vigilantism is wrong. Everyone has the right of due process.

Everyone has a right to an opinion.

[TER]

I renounced my Catholic religion 25 years ago when I researched and found out they are actually into Babylonian pagan rituals. It changed to paganism in 325AD at the Council of Nicea.

P.S.
Jesus is still my brother.


And what exactly happened at the Council of Nicea which turned the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church pagan?

Also, is part of renouncing your Catholicism result in you viewing Jesus as your brother and not your God?

[TER]

And any moderator, I hope you might provide an explanation into why this thread is still in General Politics.

[phill4paul]

And any moderator, I hope you might provide an explanation into why this thread is still in General Politics.

As the religious factions vie for political control and buy off politicians then why shouldn't it?

[TER]

As the religious factions vie for political control and buy off politicians then why shouldn't it?

I didn't know about politicians being bought out. Which politicians?

[phill4paul]

I didn't know about politicians being bought out. Which politicians?

I'm glad your interest is piqued. Seek and ye shall find. Truthfully I'm tired of the religious debate here. If you do not understand the significance and current policy of the Christian religion on American politics then I really don't know what to say, besides use the search function.

[TER]

I'm glad your interest is piqued. Seek and ye shall find. Truthfully I'm tired of the religious debate here. If you do not understand the significance and current policy of the Christian religion on American politics then I really don't know what to say, besides use the search function.

Since you haven't answered my question, I hope a moderator might. Why is this thread still in General Politics?

[phill4paul]

Since you haven't answered my question, I hope a moderator might. Why is this thread still in General Politics?

Why shouldn't this thread be in general politics?

[phill4paul]

No faith in governemnt

No faith in banks

No faith in the churches

No faith in Wall St.

No faith in Unions

WTF is left?

Family, friends and community? And even then you'll find that they can shit you also.

The only thing to stand by is faith in oneself.

Make your own covenants. Remain true to them.

It doesn't matter what others think.

To thy own self be true.

[Reason]

Why shouldn't this thread be in general politics?

Posts that don't concern the thread OP should be deleted imo.

[michaelwise]

And what exactly happened at the Council of Nicea which turned the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church pagan?

Also, is part of renouncing your Catholicism result in you viewing Jesus as your brother and not your God?

Check out this series on my Youtube channel. God is more than you think he is. God is everywhere.

The Lost Tomb of Jesus by James Cameron Part 1of 12
YouTube - The Lost Tomb of Jesus by James Cameron Part 1of 12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRE-_lJqIMU)

[phill4paul]

I just want to make one thing clear. This should not be a witch hunt against the Christian religion.

This is a fuck-up by individuals, families and communities that put "fear of god" over common sense.

Never, in my Christian upbringing, have I read a passage, nor heard a sermon, advocating pedophilia.

Blaming it on the church is like blaming the ingoing war in Iraq on the government.

It's not the church. It's not the government.

The deficiency lies in us.

[awake]

They hold power, they hold privilege, they hold for most the symbolic keys to heaven and the exclusive perk of being Gods interpreter.

They are human and corruptible like any other. It is the abuse of power granted to them, no different than any politician.

[TER]

Check out this series on my Youtube channel. God is more than you think he is. God is everywhere.

The Lost Tomb of Jesus by James Cameron Part 1of 12
YouTube - The Lost Tomb of Jesus by James Cameron Part 1of 12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRE-_lJqIMU)

This does not answer the original question I asked you. You made a statement that Christianity turned pagan at the Council of Nicea and have not answered how so. My suspicion is that you made a false statement and now cannot answer the question.

Also, bringing up the 'evidence' from the listed documentary (produced by an Orthodox Jew and directed by an unbeliever) will hold no water now as it did then when those archeological findings were first discovered.

So, do you believe that Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God, died on the cross for your sins, resurrected, and will come again to judge the living and the dead? In other words, are you a Christian? Or are you now going to invoke Elane Pagels or some other modern day gnostic?

[idirtify]

silus there was a pedophile in my Boy Scout troop. You know who took care of that problem. 14 year olds. No one believed the members that were molested. Certainly not the members of the church that sponsored the troop. But, we (children on the verge of manhood) drove this member out of town. Out of church. We did it in our own way. No we didn't bury him. But, I wish that I had the knowledge then that I'd known now. My only regret is we drove him someplace else.
So fuck you for assuming.

phill4paul

Interesting. You have inside info. Wow.

Listen…feel free to rage-on at your leisure against pedophiles. You’re not bothering me one bit.

Have you followed up on any of the victims? (I’m not gonna ask if you were a victim, since you will tell us if you want.) Are any of the victims now Scouts leaders (or teachers or preachers or firemen, etc)?

[idirtify]

I don't see why attraction to prepubescents is "far different" than any other attraction. Do people have foot fetishes because, once, somebody sucked their toes without consent? Were folks into bestiality once raped by a dog? Were heterosexual men at one point sexually harassed by a voluptuous woman? Why should pedophilia be different?



So "situational homosexuals" who have gay sex in prison or on long ship journeys really are homosexual at the point? Well, I suppose you can define it that way, though most people wouldn't. Anyway I'm not sure what point you're trying to make of pedophilia in general.

NYgs23

Apparently you don’t understand the cycle of abuse. Honestly, are you familiar with the concept? If so, do you disagree that it applies here?

Re your list of fetishes and whether they all result from abuse as children: Of course they don’t. You are merely implying a false dichotomy in order to “strawman” my argument. While it’s true that sexual preference has a lot to do with first experiences/orgasms, of course it’s not true that those experiences have to come from being abused as a child. The difference is a no-brainer: one naturally develops various non-violent sexual tendencies at the onset of puberty (when an influx in hormones naturally produce more interest in sex); the other has violent sex tendencies forcefully thrust on him/her by another at a young age. It’s the difference between natural non-violent behavior and learned aggression. Do you understand these two fundamental concepts? It’s important that you do. Any member of this forum (anyone who advocates individual liberty and opposes initiated aggression) should understand the difference between a date and a rape.

Of course those who initiate gay sex in prison are “homosexual” (to some degree). You can not want/initiate homosexual sex without being “homosexual” (to some degree). You seem to be trying to change standard definitions and/or separate the sex from the preference. Regarding the initiator of the sex: the preference may not be the dominate one, but it’s still a preference. Believe me, I could not possibly have sex with an animal or a same-sex person or a child no matter how hard I “tried”. (Surely I do not have to explain the basic mechanics; with male-intiated sex, when there is no preference, there is no “trying” - if it ain’t a preference, it ain’t gonna happen!)

If you are still not sure what point I’m trying to make of pedophilia in general, it’s not because I haven’t tried to explain. But nonetheless, god forbid I miss an opportunity to explain further… Most pedophilia is learned aggression, created by the vicious cycle of abuse; much the same way as other domestic violent crimes. Therefore, it is certainly not like “any other attraction”.

[idirtify]

And any moderator, I hope you might provide an explanation into why this thread is still in General Politics.

Of course the topic of sex is always going to be objectionable to some, but …
Really, come on! This topic is extremely political, extremely relevant to individual liberty, AND extremely current news.

Understanding it is very important in securing your own personal freedom. From what I can observe, few things are as “enslaving” as having someone else’s violent sexual tendency thrust upon you at a young age to remain with you your whole life. Besides the continued violence, it is the cause of inestimable amounts of grief and suffering and addiction and etc etc etc.

[tmosley]

I can’t say I totally understand all your stuff about genes, but most pedophilia is NOT genetic – most of it is learned aggression via the cycle of abuse (the victim becomes a victimizer because he was victimized).

Let me say what I think Mini-Me is saying (which, if I’m right, I agree with): An adult having sex with a child IS certainly aggression. Since the child can not legitimately consent, the sex is non-consensual (an involuntary application of force against their body). Forget homosexuality. It’s pedophilia that we are talking about; and preventing it does not violate the NAP or anyone’s rights.

The stuff about victimization is what they used to say about homosexuals, and it has since been proven wrong. Sexuality is ingrained in a person from the day they are born, and they can not help it. Some are lucky enough to have multiple sexual "profiles" such that they can satisfy themselves with the "appropriate" gender, while others are unable to become aroused at all in the presence of one or the other gender.

As to age, at precisely WHICH age does a child become an adult? 12? 14? 17? 21? It is impossible to say. And a child most certainly IS capable of giving consent, at least in other matters. The child wants to go to school (or doesn't), the child wants to jump on the trampoline (or doesn't), the child want to have sex with his or her boy or girlfriend of the same age (or doesn't). Why is sex treated so dramatically differently in our society than any other act?

Further, one should define what an adult is and what a child is. An adult is an individual with full rights and freedoms that come from their individuality. What, exactly, is a child? This is a subject that merits a lot of thought, because it is a subject which causes a lot of trouble in our world (with CPS separating children from their families, even as both cry out for each other).

It is only by truthful, consistent, and thorough definition that such problems can be solved in such a way that recognizes the rights of all.

I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing about these cases where an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old, and gets branded a damn sex pervert for life. This is a result of the age of consent laws, which are 100% contrived.

[nbhadja]

Why is it when a coach molests an athelete people rightfully say "he is a sick freak and deserves to be beaten to near death" but when a priest rapes a child they make excuses and hardely say anything negative about the priest?

[idirtify]

The stuff about victimization is what they used to say about homosexuals, and it has since been proven wrong. Sexuality is ingrained in a person from the day they are born, and they can not help it. Some are lucky enough to have multiple sexual "profiles" such that they can satisfy themselves with the "appropriate" gender, while others are unable to become aroused at all in the presence of one or the other gender.

As to age, at precisely WHICH age does a child become an adult? 12? 14? 17? 21? It is impossible to say. And a child most certainly IS capable of giving consent, at least in other matters. The child wants to go to school (or doesn't), the child wants to jump on the trampoline (or doesn't), the child want to have sex with his or her boy or girlfriend of the same age (or doesn't). Why is sex treated so dramatically differently in our society than any other act?

Further, one should define what an adult is and what a child is. An adult is an individual with full rights and freedoms that come from their individuality. What, exactly, is a child? This is a subject that merits a lot of thought, because it is a subject which causes a lot of trouble in our world (with CPS separating children from their families, even as both cry out for each other).

It is only by truthful, consistent, and thorough definition that such problems can be solved in such a way that recognizes the rights of all.

I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing about these cases where an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old, and gets branded a damn sex pervert for life. This is a result of the age of consent laws, which are 100% contrived.

Natural homosexuality is not a predatory preference, does not necessitate violence, violates no one’s rights, and is totally consensual. Pedophilia is opposite in every aspect. Are you disagreeing with that? Are you trying to refute the concept of learned aggression, or are you just refuting learned sexual aggression? Are you claiming that most sex criminals were born that way? If you answer “yes” to any, you are simply denying the cycle of abuse. The COA clearly proves that most criminals are created by nurture, and NOT born that way.

The debate about what makes an adult and adult and a child a child is often multifaceted, but our discussion about pedophilia is only concerned about stages of physical development. While the laws of the land about a person’s age in years can be complicated and unfair, the definition of pedophilia as it relates to puberty and adolescence and physical development is much simpler. We are certainly not talking about unfair laws that punish an 18 year old for dating a 16 year old.

I agree that it is only by truthful, consistent, and thorough definition that such problems can be solved in such a way that recognizes the rights of all. But you seem to be rejecting the fundamental definitions of the “cycle of abuse” and “learned aggression”. Study up on them and learn why an adult has no right to have sex with a child; if it does, the child’s rights are automatically violated.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Why is it when a coach molests an athelete people rightfully say "he is a sick freak and deserves to be beaten to near death" but when a priest rapes a child they make excuses and hardely say anything negative about the priest?

because people are brainwashed. Want to know the truth? Modern mainstream religions are nothing but watered down ancient cults.

[RileyE104]

If you allowed married men to become Priests, then you open up the sector to the vast majority of men, men who won't have any interest in having sex with children.

BLASPHEMY! The free market is an abomination!! :p

[The Patriot]

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0331.htm

In a pattern exemplifying the dog's behavior in Proverbs 26:11, the sexual abuse story in the global media is almost entirely a Catholic story, in which the Catholic Church is portrayed as the epicenter of the sexual abuse of the young, with hints of an ecclesiastical criminal conspiracy involving sexual predators whose predations continue today.

The sexual and physical abuse of children and young people is a global plague; its manifestations run the gamut from fondling by teachers to rape by uncles to kidnapping-and-sex-trafficking. In the United States alone, there are reportedly some 39 million victims of childhood sexual abuse. Forty to sixty percent were abused by family members, including stepfathers and live-in boyfriends of a child's mother – thus suggesting that abused children are the principal victims of the sexual revolution, the breakdown of marriage, and the hook-up culture. Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft reports that 6-10 percent of public school students have been molested in recent years – some 290,000 between 1991 and 2000. According to other recent studies, 2 percent of sex abuse offenders were Catholic priests – a phenomenon that spiked between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s but seems to have virtually disappeared (six credible cases of clerical sexual abuse in 2009 were reported in the U.S. bishops' annual audit, in a Church of some 65,000,000 members).

Yet in a pattern exemplifying the dog's behavior in Proverbs 26:11, the sexual abuse story in the global media is almost entirely a Catholic story, in which the Catholic Church is portrayed as the epicenter of the sexual abuse of the young, with hints of an ecclesiastical criminal conspiracy involving sexual predators whose predations continue today. That the vast majority of the abuse cases in the United States took place decades ago is of no consequence to this story line. For the narrative that has been constructed is often less about the protection of the young (for whom the Catholic Church is, by empirical measure, the safest environment for young people in America today) than it is about taking the Church down – and, eventually, out, both financially and as a credible voice in the public debate over public policy. For if the Church is a global criminal conspiracy of sexual abusers and their protectors, then the Catholic Church has no claim to a place at the table of public moral argument.

The Church itself is in some measure responsible for this. Reprehensible patterns of clerical sexual abuse and misgovernance by the Church's bishops came to glaring light in the U.S. in 2002; worse patterns of corruption have been recently revealed in Ireland. Clericalism, cowardice, fideism about psychotherapy's ability to "fix" sexual predators – all played their roles in the recycling of abusers into ministry and in the failure of bishops to come to grips with a massive breakdown of conviction and discipline in the post-Vatican II years. For the Church's sexual abuse crisis has always been that: a crisis of fidelity. Priests who live the noble promises of their ordination are not sexual abusers; bishops who take their custody of the Lord's flock seriously, protect the young and recognize that a man's acts can so disfigure his priesthood that he must be removed from public ministry or from the clerical state. That the Catholic Church was slow to recognize the scandal of sexual abuse within the household of faith, and the failures of governance that led to the scandal being horribly mishandled, has been frankly admitted – by the bishops of the United States in 2002, and by Pope Benedict XVI in his recent letter to the Catholic Church in Ireland. In recent years, though, no other similarly situated institution has been so transparent about its failures, and none has done as much to clean house. It took too long to get there, to be sure; but we are there.

These facts have not sunk in, however, for either the attentive public or the mass public. They do not fit the conventional story line. Moreover, they impede the advance of the larger agenda that some are clearly pursuing in these controversies. For the crisis of sexual abuse and episcopal malfeasance has been seized upon by the Church's enemies to cripple it, morally and financially, and to cripple its leaders. That was the subtext in Boston in 2002 (where the effort was aided by Catholics who want to turn Catholicism into high-church Congregationalism, preferably with themselves in charge). And that is what has happened in recent weeks, as a global media attack has swirled around Pope Benedict XVI, following the revelation of odious abuse cases throughout Europe. In his native Germany, Der Spiegel has called for the pope's resignation; similar cries for papal blood have been raised in Ireland, a once-Catholic country now home to the most aggressively secularist press in Europe.



But it was the New York Times' front page of March 25 that demonstrated just how low those determined to bring the Church down were prepared to go.


According to other recent studies, 2 percent of sex abuse offenders were Catholic priests – a phenomenon that spiked between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s but seems to have virtually disappeared (six credible cases of clerical sexual abuse in 2009 were reported in the U.S. bishops' annual audit, in a Church of some 65,000,000 members).

Rembert Weakland is the emeritus archbishop of Milwaukee, notorious for having paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to satisfy the demands of his former male lover. Jeff Anderson is a Minnesota-based attorney who has made a substantial amount of money out of sex abuse "settlements," and who is party to ongoing litigation intended to bring the resources of the Vatican within the reach of contingency-fee lawyers in the United States. Yet these two utterly implausible – and, in any serious journalistic sense, disqualified – sources were those the Times cited in a story claiming that, as cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], Joseph Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, had prevented sanctions against Father Lawrence Murphy, a diabolical Milwaukee priest who, decades before, had abused some 200 deaf children in his pastoral care. This was simply not true, as the legal papers from the Murphy case the Times provided on its Web site demonstrated (see here for a demolition of the Times' case based on the documentary evidence it made available). The facts, alas, seem to be of little interest to those whose primary concern is to nail down the narrative of global Catholic criminality, centered in the Vatican.

The Times' descent into tabloid sourcing and innuendo was even more offensive because of recent hard news developments that underscore Pope Benedict's determination to root out what he once described as the "filth" in the Church. There was, for example, the pope's March 20 letter to the Catholic Church in Ireland, which was unsparing in its condemnation of clerical sexual offenders (". . . you betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals") and unprecedented in its critique of malfeasant bishops ("grave errors of judgment were made and failures of leadership occurred . . . [which have] undermined your credibility and effectiveness"). Moreover, the pope mandated an Apostolic Visitation of Irish dioceses, seminaries, and religious congregations – a clear indication that dramatic leadership change in Ireland is coming. In framing his letter to Ireland so vigorously, Benedict XVI succeeded in overcoming the institutional Vatican preference for the subjunctive in dealing with situations like this, and the pleas of Irish bishops that he cut them some slack, given the intense pressures they were under at home. That the pope rejected both curial and Irish opposition to his lowering the boom ought to have made clear that Benedict XVI is determined to deal with the problem of sexual abuse and episcopal misgovernance in the strongest terms. But for those obsessing over whether a pope had finally "apologized" for something (as if John Paul II had not spent a decade and a half "cleansing the Church's historical conscience," as he put it), these unmistakable signals were lost.
Then there was the March 25 letter from the leadership of the Legionaries of Christ to Legionary priests and seminarians and the Legion-affiliated movement, Regnum Christi. The letter disavowed the Legion's founder, Father Marcial Maciel, as a model for the future, in light of revelations that Maciel had deceived popes, bishops, laity, and his brother Legionaries by living a duplicitous double life that included fathering several children, sexually abusing seminarians, violating the sacrament of penance, and misappropriating funds. It was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who, as prefect CDF, was determined to discover the truth about Maciel; it was Pope Benedict XVI who put Maciel under virtual ecclesiastical house arrest during his last years, and who then ordered an Apostolic Visitation of the Legion of Christ that is currently being concluded: hardly the acts of a man at the center of a conspiracy of silence and cover-up.

While the Vatican has been far quicker in its recent response to irresponsible media reports and attacks, it could still do better. A documented chronology how the archdiocese of Munich-Freising handled the case of an abusing priest who had been brought to Munich for therapy while Ratzinger was archbishop would help buttress the flat denials, by both the Vatican and the archdiocese, that Ratzinger knowingly reassigned a known abuser to pastoral work – another charge on which the Times and others have been chewing. More and clearer explanations of how the canonical procedures put into place at CDF several years ago have accelerated, not impeded, the Church's disciplining of abusive clergy would also be useful.

So, of course, would elementary fairness from the global media. That seems unlikely to come from those reporters and editors at the New York Times who have abandoned any pretence of maintaining journalistic standards. But it ought not be beyond the capacity of other media outlets to understand that much of the Times' recent reporting on the Church has been gravely distorted, and to treat it accordingly.
****************

The problem is a homosexual problem, not a priest problem.

[The Patriot]

"Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

[idirtify]

According to other recent studies, 2 percent of sex abuse offenders were Catholic priests

Yes the catholic church is being treated unfairly, because only “2 percent of sex abuse offenders were Catholic priests”. HAHAHA! If catholic priests represent about 0.0001% of the adult male population, but they make up 2% of all male sex offenders…then about 100% of them must be sex offenders. :eek:

[The Patriot]

Yes the catholic church is being treated unfairly, because only “2 percent of sex abuse offenders were Catholic priests”. HAHAHA! If catholic priests represent about 0.0001% of the adult male population, but they make up 2% of all male sex offenders…then about 100% of them must be sex offenders. :eek:

So every man is a child molestor?:rolleyes:

Friggin idiot, go back to the mathemagic fantasy land that you came from and keep reading your corporate NY Times articles written Dowd, Krugman, and Kristol, tool.

[idirtify]

"Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Ahh, now it comes clear. Since your position is that the bad news about more sex abuse within the catholic church is a conspiracy of sabotage on the part of the government, we must take sides with the church. No thanks.

Re Ron’s quote (assuming the good doctor is not beyond criticism):
While the “collectivist left” may hate religion because it “competes with the state for the people’s allegiance”, “moral and civil individuals who are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong” tend to “hate” (your word, not mine) ALL collectivist institutions that compete for their allegiance. While Ron’s version (at the link) of the founding fathers’ intentions for American churches sound nice and agreeable, the history of religion is no better than the history of government; since they were until only recently the same thing. As if our government is not bad enough, the virtual sum total of the history of religion is far worse - in all of the same areas and more (hence the separation clause).

[The Patriot]

Ahh, now it comes clear. Since your position is that the bad news about more sex abuse within the catholic church is a conspiracy of sabotage on the part of the government, we must take sides with the church. No thanks.

Re Ron’s quote (assuming the good doctor is not beyond criticism):
While the “collectivist left” may hate religion because it “competes with the state for the people’s allegiance”, “moral and civil individuals who are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong” tend to “hate” (your word, not mine) ALL collectivist institutions that compete for their allegiance. While Ron’s version (at the link) of the founding fathers’ intentions for American churches sound nice and agreeable, the history of religion is no better than the history of government; since they were until only recently the same thing. As if our government is not bad enough, the virtual sum total of the history of religion is far worse - in all of the same areas and more (hence the separation clause).

There is no conspiracy, the establishment media, which is an arm of the political elite, despises the Catholic Church. I am all for ending molestation by gay priests. It is a gay problem, it is not a Church problem. Why not discuss the rampant child abuse in divorced families, or in public schools? it happens far more in those places, why doesn't the Media call for an abolishment of the Dep. of Ed, or the firing of superintendents and teachers, or a massive investigation into the school system? They are trying to destroy the credibility and prestige of the Church as a Moral Institution in an attempt to make it irrelevant.

[The Patriot]

And if you have a problem with individuals on a voluntary basis setting up organizations to worship, than you can go be an atomistic individual on a desert island. Normal people like community and voluntary interaction. No rational person can compare this to the coercive state which has a monopoly on force.

[idirtify]

So every man is a child molestor?:rolleyes:

Friggin idiot, go back to the mathemagic fantasy land that you came from and keep reading your corporate NY Times articles written Dowd, Krugman, and Kristol, tool.

Ahh, now it comes clear. The poster who advocates religion and defends the church is the first in this rather long thread to resort to name-calling insults. And I must say that you resorted to it rather quickly. I suppose an observer might characterize your behavior as either “unexpected” (coming from a church advocate) OR “EXPECTED” (coming from a church advocate).

But wait…you aren’t done yet. Besides calling me a “friggin idiot”, you claim that since I criticized your article’s numbers, then I must surely read “corporate NY Times articles written Dowd, Krugman, and Kristol”. Nope, sorry.

For such a short post, yours sure contains a lot of hostility and fallacy.

BTW, I did not say that “every man is a child molester”. When I said “then about 100% of THEM must be sex offenders”, I obviously meant “100% of CATHOLIC PRIESTS must be…”. And I was only calculating YOUR math. If you disagree with it, refute it.

[The Patriot]

Ahh, now it comes clear. The poster who advocates religion and defends the church is the first in this rather long thread to resort to name-calling insults. And I must say that you resorted to it rather quickly. I suppose an observer might characterize your behavior as either “unexpected” (coming from a church advocate) OR “EXPECTED” (coming from a church advocate).

But wait…you aren’t done yet. Besides calling me a “friggin idiot”, you claim that since I criticized your article’s numbers, then I must surely read “corporate NY Times articles written Dowd, Krugman, and Kristol”. Nope, sorry.

For such a short post, yours sure contains a lot of hostility and fallacy.

BTW, I did not say that “every man is a child molester”. When I said “then about 100% of THEM must be sex offenders”, I obviously meant “100% of CATHOLIC PRIESTS must be…”. And I was only calculating YOUR math. If you disagree with it, refute it.
Yes, I am a Catholic. And the fact is, you are propagating the line of every major corporate newspaper in America, the line of owners such as Zell and Sulzberger, which is strongly anti-Vatican. You are an idiot, you claim since there are 4 million priests, and billions of men; that since 2% of molesters are priests that 100% of Priests are molesters. How many molesters, or repeat molesters do you think there are? I will continue with the hostility, since you are calling my church a cabal for child molesters.

[idirtify]

There is no conspiracy, the establishment media, which is an arm of the political elite, despises the Catholic Church. I am all for ending molestation by gay priests. It is a gay problem, it is not a Church problem. Why not discuss the rampant child abuse in divorced families, or in public schools? it happens far more in those places, why doesn't the Media call for an abolishment of the Dep. of Ed, or the firing of superintendents and teachers, or a massive investigation into the school system? They are trying to destroy the credibility and prestige of the Church as a Moral Institution in an attempt to make it irrelevant.

“There is no conspiracy, the establishment media, which is an arm of the political elite, despises the Catholic Church.”

Your first sentence denies a conspiracy (only to be arguing with me, I presume), but your second sentence describes one.

“I am all for ending molestation by gay priests.”

I agree, but the bulk of your comments don’t show it - such as your next one:

“It is a gay problem, it is not a Church problem.”

Hiring and hiding homosexual pedophiles in your church is certainly more of a “church problem” than a “gay problem”. While I’m sure pedophiles often give homosexuals a bad name, that isn’t exactly related to this issue.

“Why not discuss the rampant child abuse in divorced families, or in public schools?”

I believe we have addressed it, on how it relates to this topic. If you want more, start a new topic.

“it happens far more in those places, why doesn't the Media call for an abolishment of the Dep. of Ed, or the firing of superintendents and teachers, or a massive investigation into the school system?”

Whether it actually happens “more” is arguable, but your point is good. It just doesn’t happen to defend the church - or be a part of this topic. Again: if you want to discuss that more, start another topic.

“They are trying to destroy the credibility and prestige of the Church as a Moral Institution in an attempt to make it irrelevant.”

I believe the church is doing a pretty good job of that all by its self.

[idirtify]

And if you have a problem with individuals on a voluntary basis setting up organizations to worship, than you can go be an atomistic individual on a desert island. Normal people like community and voluntary interaction. No rational person can compare this to the coercive state which has a monopoly on force.

Come on! Drop the obvious strawman distortion. I never indicated I had “a problem with individuals on a voluntary basis setting up organizations to worship”.

[The Patriot]

“There is no conspiracy, the establishment media, which is an arm of the political elite, despises the Catholic Church.”

Your first sentence denies a conspiracy (only to be arguing with me, I presume), but your second sentence describes one.

“I am all for ending molestation by gay priests.”

I agree, but the bulk of your comments don’t show it - such as your next one:

“It is a gay problem, it is not a Church problem.”

Hiring and hiding homosexual pedophiles in your church is certainly more of a “church problem” than a “gay problem”. While I’m sure pedophiles often give homosexuals a bad name, that isn’t exactly related to this issue.

“Why not discuss the rampant child abuse in divorced families, or in public schools?”

I believe we have addressed it, on how it relates to this topic. If you want more, start a new topic.

“it happens far more in those places, why doesn't the Media call for an abolishment of the Dep. of Ed, or the firing of superintendents and teachers, or a massive investigation into the school system?”

Whether it actually happens “more” is arguable, but your point is good. It just doesn’t happen to defend the church - or be a part of this topic. Again: if you want to discuss that more, start another topic.

“They are trying to destroy the credibility and prestige of the Church as a Moral Institution in an attempt to make it irrelevant.”

I believe the church is doing a pretty good job of that all by its self.

It isn't arguable, it is a fact, child abuse is far more rampant in divorced homes and public schools, yet no one discusses these things, it is because it isn't part of the agenda, eliminating. You still have provided no proof for your claims that all priests are child molesters, while I have provided proof that since 1950 only 2% of molestations(which include single and repeat offenders), have been committed by priests(and only 6 credible cases in a church with 65 million people). Why are they not breaking every public school case? Calling for firings and massive overhauls for much more rampant abuse. I will agree, no gays should be allowed in the Church, local bishops shouldn't protect repeat offenders. But the fact of the matter is, it isn't rampant in the Catholic Church and is far more rampant in other sectors that the establishment media refuses to ignore. It is because they have an anti-Vatican agenda. It is not some far flung conspiracy, they expose their hate in their persistent articles while effectively ignoring abuse in other areas.

Pope Benedict is the best Pope the Church has had in years. He is cracking down on clerical abuse, is entering into talks with SSPX, is returning to traditionalist liturgy, is getting rid corrupt Cardinals Roger Mahoney, he opposes the interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, supports the sovereignty of the Palestinian people, has and has opened peaceful relations with Iran.

[idirtify]

Yes, I am a Catholic. And the fact is, you are propagating the line of every major corporate newspaper in America, the line of owners such as Zell and Sulzberger, which is strongly anti-Vatican. You are an idiot, you claim since there are 4 million priests, and billions of men; that since 2% of molesters are priests that 100% of Priests are molesters. How many molesters, or repeat molesters do you think there are? I will continue with the hostility, since you are calling my church a cabal for child molesters.

I don’t read newspapers.

Regarding who is a bigger idiot, you are claiming to have intimate knowledge of my intelligence based on nothing more than this tiny bit of information you read in my posts. Even if 100% of my claims were inaccurate, it would not show that I am an unqualified “idiot”. Yet, you claim it does. So if you contend that one of us is certainly an idiot, wouldn’t it have to be the one who looks MORE like one?

Seriously, you know nothing about my real intelligence. So before you commit to repeating insults and hostility, you should go read the terms and rules for remaining on this forum. Being a catholic, and in a forum that criticizes catholic pedophiles, does not excuse your insults.

I believe there are about 400,000 catholic priests and about 2 billion adult males and who knows how many (tens/hundreds of) millions of them are pedophiles. Now mind you that my math was largely an estimate, but it was to show that your numbers do not in any way minimize the church’s problem.

[The Patriot]

I don’t read newspapers.

Regarding who is a bigger idiot, you are claiming to have intimate knowledge of my intelligence based on nothing more than this tiny bit of information you read in my posts. Even if 100% of my claims were inaccurate, it would not show that I am an unqualified “idiot”. Yet, you claim it does. So if you contend that one of us is certainly an idiot, wouldn’t it have to be the one who looks MORE like one?

Seriously, you know nothing about my real intelligence. So before you commit to repeating insults and hostility, you should go read the terms and rules for remaining on this forum. Being a catholic, and in a forum that criticizes catholic pedophiles, does not excuse your insults.

I believe there are about 400,000 catholic priests and about 2 billion adult males and who knows how many (tens/hundreds of) millions of them are pedophiles. Now mind you that my math was largely an estimate, but it was to show that your numbers do not in any way minimize the church’s problem.

Exactly, all you are doing is estimates, while I on the other hand am providing documented evidence. How you can convolute 2 percent of child molestation cases involving priests since 1950, and 6 cases in 2009 out of a church of 65 million, to the brash and insulting conclusion that all priests are child molesters is absurd. How about Public Education's problem, or divorced homes' problem? How come the Church, which has far less molestation than other sectors, gets all the attention? Direct you hate at the vile gay molesters who engage in these acts, to belittle the Institution of the Roman Catholic Church unless you are going to boldly and more forthrightly condemn the rampant abuse I talked about above.

[surf]

Really, jeez why can't they like something normal like girl on girl or bondage?

that's funny. i've always questioned what to me seems like fucked up logic of celibacy among holy men. i'm not sure what the bible or the catholic church has ever said about celibacy vs sex w/young males, but i do question the concept of telling catholic priests to keep their dicks in their pants while espousing the rest of the church to "go forth and multiply" and not use contraception...

[idirtify]

It isn't arguable, it is a fact, child abuse is far more rampant in divorced homes and public schools, yet no one discusses these things, it is because it isn't part of the agenda, eliminating. You still have provided no proof for your claims that all priests are child molesters, while I have provided proof that since 1950 only 2% of molestations(which include single and repeat offenders), have been committed by priests(and only 6 credible cases in a church with 65 million people). Why are they not breaking every public school case? Calling for firings and massive overhauls for much more rampant abuse. I will agree, no gays should be allowed in the Church, local bishops shouldn't protect repeat offenders. But the fact of the matter is, it isn't rampant in the Catholic Church and is far more rampant in other sectors that the establishment media refuses to ignore. It is because they have an anti-Vatican agenda. It is not some far flung conspiracy, they expose their hate in their persistent articles while effectively ignoring abuse in other areas.

Pope Benedict is the best Pope the Church has had in years. He is cracking down on clerical abuse, is entering into talks with SSPX, is returning to traditionalist liturgy, is getting rid corrupt Cardinals Roger Mahoney, he opposes the interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, supports the sovereignty of the Palestinian people, has and has opened peaceful relations with Iran.

“You still have provided no proof for your claims that all priests are child molesters”

My “proof” was YOUR numbers. Now I don’t seriously believe that all priests are child molesters. I was only doing the math to show how your numbers do not minimize the severity of the church’s problem – as you intended.

Anyway… with better explanations and no hostility, you are now making part of your case much better here. I can totally believe that the church is being selected out, considering their anti-war policy and all. OTOH, I think you will agree that the existence of worse problems elsewhere (more pedophilia in schools than churches) doesn’t really serve to reduce the current and present problems for the here and now.

Anyway…I was not intending to cast mud on the whole church. I was only opposing the crimes committed there. Peace.

[BlackTerrel]

Yes, I am a Catholic. And the fact is, you are propagating the line of every major corporate newspaper in America, the line of owners such as Zell and Sulzberger, which is strongly anti-Vatican. You are an idiot, you claim since there are 4 million priests, and billions of men; that since 2% of molesters are priests that 100% of Priests are molesters. How many molesters, or repeat molesters do you think there are? I will continue with the hostility, since you are calling my church a cabal for child molesters.

You're half right. Catholic Priests are not any more likely then the leaders of any other denomination to molest children.

The reason this is an issue is that when Mormons, Lutherans, Baptists, Jews etc. have had their molestation issues the offenders have been charged and dealt with appropriately. The Vatican for decades covered up abuses, charged those who spoke against them as being "anti-Catholic" and instead of removing pedophile Priests simply moved them to other Parishes where they could molest again.

[The Patriot]

“You still have provided no proof for your claims that all priests are child molesters”

My “proof” was YOUR numbers. Now I don’t seriously believe that all priests are child molesters. I was only doing the math to show how your numbers do not minimize the severity of the church’s problem – as you intended.

Anyway… with better explanations and no hostility, you are now making part of your case much better here. I can totally believe that the church is being selected out, considering their anti-war policy and all. OTOH, I think you will agree that the existence of worse problems elsewhere (more pedophilia in schools than churches) doesn’t really serve to reduce the current and present problems for the here and now.

Anyway…I was not intending to cast mud on the whole church. I was only opposing the crimes committed there. Peace.
You didn't use my numbers, you convoluted them. Anti-papist thought was rampant Among protestant know nothings, early republicans, unionists, calvinists(who started compulsory public school and forced catholic children to read the protestant bible), and it is rampant today, whether it be in the media or liberal(or as I call them, statist atheist) academic circles at our universities.

I am glad you aren't being hostile. The bottom line is, there are clerical abuses, and they should be dealt with, but the bottom line is, there is a political bent behind the prejudice and it is evident through the statist and corporate owned media bashing the Church.

I think the newspaper publications and media outlets also have a Vendetta out for Pope Benedict who is allowing Bishop Williamson(Holocaust Skeptic, but I don't believe him to be an anti semite), back into the fold. Now I believe in the Holocaust, I have friends who grandparents were either in the camps or had family members in there themselves. But I hate the political persecution and repression of free speech that occurs throughout Europe on the issue. By banning Holocaust questions, you merely give credence to those on the other side. I also think they hate that Pope Benedict is replacing very pro amnesty and pro liberation theology Cardinal Mahony in Los Angeles with an Opus Dei member, Jose Gomez.

[MelissaWV]

You're half right. Catholic Priests are not any more likely then the leaders of any other denomination to molest children.

The reason this is an issue is that when Mormons, Lutherans, Baptists, Jews etc. have had their molestation issues the offenders have been charged and dealt with appropriately. The Vatican for decades covered up abuses, charged those who spoke against them as being "anti-Catholic" and instead of removing pedophile Priests simply moved them to other Parishes where they could molest again.

This.

Schools get into very deep shit when they do this, too. If someone's suspected of sleeping with their students, and they're just shipped off to another school, it's huge news and there's all these "how can we stop this from ever happening again?" stories that follow. Schools GENERALLY don't ship the problem teachers around, though, and teachers who are proven to be molesting children are not typically back teaching again. When they are, again, it's a huge deal.

Multiply this screwup exponentially, and you get what has been going on in the Church. These victims are of such a broad range of ages that it is obvious the shuffling of sickos in the Church has been going on for a very long time. There is a culture of corruption. The only parallel I can draw is with the police, where small screwups are often swept under the rug, or those who routinely use excessive force will be transferred around as long as it can be kept quiet. This doesn't mean all police are bad, but it does mean the police have a culture of "looking after their own" and resent when "outsiders" try to impose justice. That's what's going on here.

People who like to touch kids will seek out positions of power where they are defined by their job, and where they have easy, private access to kids. This might mean being a priest, teacher, security guard, police officer, scout leader, athletics coach, and so on. That doesn't take a genius to figure out. Additionally, as The Patriot pointed out, being the "new parent" (or the only parent at all) is another situation that offers up opportunities for this to go on.

[NYgs23]

Apparently you don’t understand the cycle of abuse. Honestly, are you familiar with the concept? If so, do you disagree that it applies here?

I dispute the idea that all or even most people you are attracted to children are so because they were molested as children. I think it's a way for people to explain something they don't understand and find extremely disturbing. We view pedophilia as so disturbing that we can't accept that it could simply be the way some people are. We have to blame some external influence.


one naturally develops various non-violent sexual tendencies at the onset of puberty (when an influx in hormones naturally produce more interest in sex); the other has violent sex tendencies forcefully thrust on him/her by another at a young age. It’s the difference between natural non-violent behavior and learned aggression.

But pedophilic attractions aren't violent in and of themselves. Violence only occurs when the person acts out aggressively against a child. What about a pedophile who never acts out on his attractions, which is probably the vast majority of them? Maybe you're defining "pedophile" as synonymous with "child molester," but the technical definition is "someone who's sexually attracted to child" whether they act on those attractions or not.

And how do you know that people are only tempted to commit violence if they've had violence done to them? I don't think most men who have rape fantasies were raped. I don't think most people who fantasize about shooting up their workplace have some Freudian trauma from their childhoods. I think, to some degree, it's part of human nature. The important thing is that people don't act on these thoughts.

[NYgs23]

Schools GENERALLY don't ship the problem teachers around, though, and teachers who are proven to be molesting children are not typically back teaching again. When they are, again, it's a huge deal.

Unfortunately, you overestimate the efficiency of the public schools in dealing with this issue:

Sexual Misconduct Continues to Plague U.S. Schools (http://www.1888pressrelease.com/sexual-misconduct-continues-to-plague-u-s-schools-pr-194263.html)

Remember clergymen of any denomination are no more likely to molest than teachers. And I see no indication that the school administrators are handling it any better than the bishops did.


Multiply this screwup exponentially, and you get what has been going on in the Church. These victims are of such a broad range of ages that it is obvious the shuffling of sickos in the Church has been going on for a very long time. There is a culture of corruption.

Many bishops were incompetent, if not negligent, in dealing with cases of sexual abuse under their watch, but at the same time, the media has been terribly biased in its reporting. For example, it hasn't reported the numerous reforms that have been implemented over the past decade, so that there were only six credible accusations of abuse in the past year. It hasn't reported the reforms the Pope has implemented how the Vatican responds to such accusations. As a result most people think that the Church and the Vatican have been sitting on their hands all this time, when that is not the case.

[nbhadja]

because people are brainwashed. Want to know the truth? Modern mainstream religions are nothing but watered down ancient cults.

+1

The illuminati tactic is to divide and conquer. Nothing does that better than organized religion.

[nbhadja]

...

[idirtify]

I dispute the idea that all or even most people you are attracted to children are so because they were molested as children. I think it's a way for people to explain something they don't understand and find extremely disturbing. We view pedophilia as so disturbing that we can't accept that it could simply be the way some people are. We have to blame some external influence.



But pedophilic attractions aren't violent in and of themselves. Violence only occurs when the person acts out aggressively against a child. What about a pedophile who never acts out on his attractions, which is probably the vast majority of them? Maybe you're defining "pedophile" as synonymous with "child molester," but the technical definition is "someone who's sexually attracted to child" whether they act on those attractions or not.

And how do you know that people are only tempted to commit violence if they've had violence done to them? I don't think most men who have rape fantasies were raped. I don't think most people who fantasize about shooting up their workplace have some Freudian trauma from their childhoods. I think, to some degree, it's part of human nature. The important thing is that people don't act on these thoughts.

“I dispute the idea that all or even most people you are attracted to children are so because they were molested as children. I think it's a way for people to explain something they don't understand and find extremely disturbing. We view pedophilia as so disturbing that we can't accept that it could simply be the way some people are. We have to blame some external influence.”

You DISAGREE, but you have refuted nothing. All you have done is state what you think. You have not provided any outside support for your opinion, and it doesn’t appear to have any basis in behavioral psychology.

“But pedophilic attractions aren't violent in and of themselves. Violence only occurs when the person acts out aggressively against a child. What about a pedophile who never acts out on his attractions, which is probably the vast majority of them? Maybe you're defining ‘pedophile’ as synonymous with ‘child molester’, but the technical definition is ‘someone who's sexually attracted to child’ whether they act on those attractions or not.”

But we are only discussing pedophilic attractions in terms of the child abuse that is widely known to cause it. There is little doubt that many with pedophilic tendencies don’t act them out, but whether that really makes them a “pedophile” or not is unrelated to this discussion. It certainly doesn’t refute either of the two types of preferences I described. So what’s your point?

“And how do you know that people are only tempted to commit violence if they've had violence done to them?”

I never said any such thing. My position is that many people commit violence because they've had violence done to them. The way you distort my position is a classic strawman fallacy.

“I don't think most men who have rape fantasies were raped.”

Maybe most not literally “raped”, but most suffered much abuse as children. (Although I’m not sure if you are defining “fantasies” as “tendencies” or “preferences”. It appears you are trying to lower a standard/criterion.)

“I don't think most people who fantasize about shooting up their workplace have some Freudian trauma from their childhoods. I think, to some degree, it's part of human nature. The important thing is that people don't act on these thoughts.”

Again, you change “prefer” into “fantasize”. And what you “think” doesn’t appear to be related to any kind of behavior science that I am aware of. And the existence of people who don’t act out their violent fantasies (or tendencies or preference, for that matter) is certainly NOT “the important thing” in this discussion. We are discussing people who DO act out, and why they do, and what the effects are.

[NYgs23]

You DISAGREE, but you have refuted nothing. All you have done is state what you think. You have not provided any outside support for your opinion, and it doesn’t appear to have any basis in behavioral psychology.

Have you? If so I missed it, though admittedly I haven't read every post on this thread. But I have to say, I'm not sure how accurate any statistics could be in regards to pedophiles, since the the vast majority of them are unknown. Virtually the only ones anyone knows of are the ones who actually had sex with a child and were caught, and that would tend to skew any statistics about them.


But we are only discussing pedophilic attractions in terms of the child abuse that is widely known to cause it. There is little doubt that many with pedophilic tendencies don’t act them out, but whether that really makes them a “pedophile” or not is unrelated to this discussion. It certainly doesn’t refute either of the two types of preferences I described. So what’s your point?

All I'm questioning is how many people who have sexual attractions to children have them because they were abused as children. I think the percentage would be pretty low. I think the bulk of people who have sexual attractions to children have them because of a combination of biological and (non-abusive) environmental factors, the same as other sexual attractions. I don't see why pedophilic attractions would be different or have a different source than heterosexuality, homosexuality, fetishes, or any other desire.


My position is that many people commit violence because they've had violence done to them.

Yes, but many do not. In fact, I'd venture to say that most do not. And pedophilia (the attraction, I mean) is not violent in and of itself.


Maybe most not literally “raped”, but most suffered much abuse as children.

Where is the evidence for that? What about people with into BDSM, were they also abused? I just don't see any reason to think that people who either (a) commit violence or (b) fantasize about committing violence are typically victims of violence.

And pedophilic fantasies are even more of a stretch since they're not necessarily even violent fantasies. Unlike people who fantasize about rape, the pedophile is not aroused by violence itself. He usually wants to believe that the child is consenting or at least rationalizes this way. Some people say that pedophiles are aroused by the power they have over the child, but I've seen no evidence for that either. I think they just happen to find the bodies and personalities of children sexually attractive. Most people have a nonsexual, aesthetic attraction to children (they find them cute, enjoy being around them, etc); I think with pedophiles a sexual desire becomes intermingled with the nonsexual affection most adults have towards children. No, I don't have evidence for that, but I haven't seen any evidence refuting it, and I think it makes more sense logically.


(Although I’m not sure if you are defining “fantasies” as “tendencies” or “preferences”. It appears you are trying to lower a standard/criterion.)

I don't see a qualitative difference. But if you want we'll use the term "preferences" from now on.


And the existence of people who don’t act out their violent fantasies (or tendencies or preference, for that matter) is certainly NOT “the important thing” in this discussion. We are discussing people who DO act out, and why they do, and what the effects are.

We are? I thought we were discussing pedophilia in general, not just pedophiles who act out.

[idirtify]

Have you? If so I missed it SNIP

“Have you? If so I missed it, though admittedly I haven't read every post on this thread.”

Yes, I certainly have. The basis of my support is firmly rooted in human sexuality and development and behavioral psychology. It’s called the “cycle of abuse” (there are also other names), and you COULD NOT have missed it.

“But I have to say, I'm not sure how accurate any statistics could be in regards to pedophiles, since the vast majority of them are unknown. Virtually the only ones anyone knows of are the ones who actually had sex with a child and were caught, and that would tend to skew any statistics about them.”

First, the “cycle of abuse” is not a “statistic”. Second, the fact that most pedophiles are unaccounted for doesn’t mean that any statistics about them would be “skewed” – unless you are using “skewed” only to mean “imperfect”. Third, many imperfect statistics provide good information.

“All I'm questioning is how many people who have sexual attractions to children have them because they were abused as children. I think the percentage would be pretty low.”

(You are certainly “questioning” more than that. See my last line.) I have told you how; through the cycle of abuse/violence. And yes, it’s MANY people. And by disagreeing without a basis, you are simply ignoring my factual basis. Why don’t you try to claim that there’s aren’t many wife beaters, and most of the ones who exist did not have a father who beat their mother - and see how far you get? This is a very well-known model of domestic violence, and it certainly applies to sexual behavior. What part of it do you not understand? Do you not think that sex can be used as aggression? Do you not know that sex abuse is a huge part of domestic violence?

“I think the bulk of people who have sexual attractions to children have them because of a combination of biological and (non-abusive) environmental factors, the same as other sexual attractions. I don't see why pedophilic attractions would be different or have a different source than heterosexuality, homosexuality, fetishes, or any other desire.”

Why don’t you see why? You have described what you think, but have not explained WHY you think it. Considering that you ARE aware of a better explanation but are ignoring it, you are not being reasonable. You seem to be saying that pedophilia is generally the result of nothing more than children who had attractions to other children. I’m aware of no such theory of human sexuality. IOW “puppylove” does not create (turn into) pedophilia.

“Yes, but many do not. In fact, I'd venture to say that most do not.”

Are you guessing, or going on some statistic? If it’s the latter, you already defeated it above – with your comment about inaccurate pedophile statistics. Actually you don’t have a significant point either way, since we know two facts: 1) a very large percent of pedophiles report being a victim of a pedophile; 2) a very large percent of pedophiles report having many hundreds of victims each. Therefore, even if it’s true that only a minority of pedophiles are pedophiles because they were molested by pedophiles AND only a minority of them actually commit pedophilia, there would still be a massive number of total victims – and out of that would be a very large number of active cycle-of-abuse pedophiles.

“Where is the evidence for that? What about people with into BDSM, were they also abused? I just don't see any reason to think that people who either (a) commit violence or (b) fantasize about committing violence are typically victims of violence.”

And with such an incredibly uninformed position as that, you are about as far out on a small rotten limb as you can possibly be. Even though the fact that most criminals are created by their environment was proven long ago, you are asking for evidence. That’s amazing considering there is an abundance of it. Google “cycle of abuse” and you get 146,000 hits; “cycle of violence” - 467,000. I’ll give you two short links for a basic overview. If you think you will gain credibility by asking for more referenced sources and/or ones that more directly associate child sex abuse with pedophilia, I dare you to go for it.

Cycle of abuse/violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_violence

The Generational Cycle of Violence
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/justformen/generational_cycle_of_violence.htm

“And pedophilic fantasies are even more of a stretch since they're not necessarily even violent fantasies. Unlike people who fantasize about rape, the pedophile is not aroused by violence itself. He usually wants to believe that the child is consenting or at least rationalizes this way. Some people say that pedophiles are aroused by the power they have over the child, but I've seen no evidence for that either. I think they just happen to find the bodies and personalities of children sexually attractive. Most people have a nonsexual, aesthetic attraction to children (they find them cute, enjoy being around them, etc); I think with pedophiles a sexual desire becomes intermingled with the nonsexual affection most adults have towards children. No, I don't have evidence for that, but I haven't seen any evidence refuting it, and I think it makes more sense logically.”

Things that appear to the uninformed to be “consensual” and “just happen” are often antisocial disorders rooted in precise etiology. And as far as your understanding of human sexuality and behavioral psychology goes, it is about as uninformed as I have seen for one who seems otherwise intelligent. Far from “logical”, your attempt to paint pedophilia as non-violent IS the main delusion of pedophilia – that it’s not violent. Since when is the delusion of a pedophile an accurate reflection of truth?? IOW to truly believe that the active pedophile is not committing violence is astoundingly illogical. Do you have an overly-narrow definition of “violence”. At this point, I double-dare you to try the old “consenting child” defense for pedophilia again.

“We are? I thought we were discussing pedophilia in general, not just pedophiles who act out.”

No. I would highly advise you to read the whole thread. At least read the thread title and the OP (and my posts, since you are arguing with me). But I do not really believe you are honestly confused about the thread. The general direction of your posts clearly shows an attempt to minimize the crime of pedophilia.

[NYgs23]

The basis of my support is firmly rooted in human sexuality and development and behavioral psychology. It’s called the “cycle of abuse” (there are also other names), and you COULD NOT have missed it.

I understand what your asserting. But I need evidence. I'm skeptical of the idea that the temptation to commit violence is predominantly a learned behavior. I'm not suggesting learned behavior doesn't play a role. I just don't think it plays such an overwhelming role as you seem to be suggesting. I believe that most human traits, including the capacity to commit acts of violence, arise through a combination arise from a combination of biological and environmental factors. Social factors certainly play a role, but, to a great degree, aggression is inherent in human nature.


by disagreeing without a basis, you are simply ignoring my factual basis.

But I haven't seen your factual basis, only your assertions. I didn't claim to have empirical evidence for my belief that sexual attractions arise through a combination of biological and environmental factors, and I was not looking for an argument. But it makes logical sense to me that all psychological traits are the result of a complex intermingling of "nature" and "nurture" factors, and I need evidence that a human personality trait is almost always caused solely by a particular environmental factor before I change my mind.


Why don’t you try to claim that there’s aren’t many wife beaters, and most of the ones who exist did not have a father who beat their mother

I never said there aren't many wife beaters. But you never showed the evidence that "most of the ones who exist have a father who beat their mother." I suspect many of them did, but I don't know what the proportions are or how influential that factor is. Maybe some people are just born sadistic. Maybe some people become abusive due to other environmental factors, like alcoholism or financial stress. Or most probably it's a combination. Why don't you show me evidence instead of just saying, "Well, everyone knows this!"


You seem to be saying that pedophilia is generally the result of nothing more than children who had attractions to other children. I’m aware of no such theory of human sexuality.

No, this is what I said, "I think the bulk of people who have sexual attractions to children have them because of a combination of biological and (non-abusive) environmental factors, the same as other sexual attractions." How hard is that to understand. People are born with certain biological traits that are influenced by environmental factors throughout their lives. The interplay between all these factors is probably extremely complex and can't be boiled down to one simple psychoanalytic explanation, "Well, this is where this comes from!" Maybe some pedophiles did acquire their attractions, in part, from sexual experiences or desires they had as children with other children. I don't know. What I don't understand is how you can be so confident in being able to pinpoint the origin of such a complex thing as a human psychological trait, especially over entire populations of people.


a very large percent of pedophiles report having many hundreds of victims each.

I find it dubious in the extreme that large percentages of any type of criminal have hundreds of victims. Do Mafia bosses rack up such numbers? And what does it have to do with the nature vs. nurture debate?


The Generational Cycle of Violence
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/justformen/generational_cycle_of_violence.htm

Finally, you try to provide some evidence. "81% of men who batter had fathers who abused their mother....80% of men in prisons grew up in violent homes." So there's some evidence. Was that so hard?

On the other hands, here's an paper pointing out more pro-nature theories: Aggression - Biological Theory vs Behaviorist Theory (http://www.courseworkhelp.co.uk/A_Level/Psychology/03.htm). It says, "Growing evidence points to the conclusion that biological factors do predispose some individuals toward aggression. Through much research, it was found that people who suffer from reduced levels of serotonin are more likely proned to suffer from reduced abilities to control their aggressive impulses. These findings lend support to the view that biological factors do indeed play an important role in at least some forms of aggression." Again, my own opinion is that it's a combination of the two, not either/or.

Do you have any evidence that suggests that most people with sexual attractions towards children were sexually molested as children?


Far from “logical”, your attempt to paint pedophilia as non-violent IS the main delusion of pedophilia – that it’s not violent. Since when is the delusion of a pedophile an accurate reflection of truth?? IOW to truly believe that the active pedophile is not committing violence is astoundingly illogical.

No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm only talking about people who have an attraction to children, whether or not they act on it. I'm talking about where the attraction comes from. I meant that the attraction, in and of itself, is not violent. No temptation is violent, in and of itself. You keep equating the act with the attraction, but there's a crucial difference, the difference between being tempted to kill someone and actually doing it.

Your confused because you keep using the word "pedophile" to mean "child molester." But I'm using it to mean "person with sexual attractions to children" whether or not they act on it. I'm using the definition because that's what it means.

Or are you saying that only pedophiles who act on their pedophilic attractions are likely to derive their attractions from the cycle of abuse?


The general direction of your posts clearly shows an attempt to minimize the crime of pedophilia.

Total nonsense. I just disagreed with your psycholoanalysis of where pedophilic attractions come from. Don't make libelous accusations because I don't blindly buy your psychological pontifications. It's like accusing a person of being pro-Nazi because they opposed US entry into WWII.

Look what you say here: "I imagine most (all?) of the victims who had orgasms during their abuse either become active pedophiles, or at least have the preference/tendency....That’s why it’s both epidemic and silent. It’s a self-protecting affliction; because as soon as you are infected, you will likely start infecting others....It’s a most horrible crime for the victim, since a criminal forces a life-long sexual preference on him."

Where did you get all that from? I doubt it's from any scholarly study. I think it sounds, to be frank, moronic. It's paranoid, hysterical, and absurd. A child molestation victim who has an orgasm is "infected" with the pedophile virus?? Absolute nonsense. I think you just made that up ad hoc. If it were the case the whole human race would have become pedophiles millennia ago. I think you've taken the seed of some psychological data and blown it way out of proportion in your own mind. The worst aspect is how your feverish ideas cast a pall of suspicion over molestation victims. But see what it says here (http://www.cleananpress.com/abuse.htm), "Most victims of child sexual abuse go on to lead very normal lives. They usually function well in most areas of everyday life....Most victims of child sexual abuse make successful lives for themselves in spite of the hardships they have suffered." Sure, child abuse victims may be to some degree more likely to become abusers than the general population, but the level of dread and stigma your perfervid and hyperbolic rhetoric casts is vastly out of proportion to reality.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

+1

The illuminati tactic is to divide and conquer. Nothing does that better than organized religion.

Thanks dude. Let's fight the illuminati together :) Let's discuss our tactics!!!!

[Sandman33]

No faith in governemnt

No faith in banks

No faith in the churches

No faith in Wall St.

No faith in Unions

WTF is left?

Ron Paul.

[Sandman33]

Thanks dude. Let's fight the illuminati together :) Let's discuss our tactics!!!!

Jesus tactic?

Maybe...just maybe. The illuminati were behind the story of the bible and Jesus too! And the whole time they promoted this story to the public THEY started being all Satanic.....

Just for the purpose of having the masses believe in Christianity where Revelations says that a world order WILL happen and everyone WILL take the mark of the beast.

:eek: Imagine that! Everyone microchipped slaves and NO Jesus to come back and save everyone because THEY MADE IT ALL UP! a 5 thousand year old conspiracy! :eek:

Just an idea.

[idirtify]

I understand what your asserting. But I need evidence. snip



I don’t know if “the TEMPTATION to commit violence is predominantly a learned behavior”. It seems you are trying to change/broaden my position. We are talking about the ACT of domestic violence/abuse and the TENDENCY / PREFERENCE that typically underlies it; in specific regard to CHILD SEX ABUSE as it relates to this thread. It looks like you are tying to strawman my position when you sneak in overly-broad concepts like “human traits”, “the CAPACITY to commit acts of violence”, “all psychological traits”, and “human personality” – thereby changing my position to include such unrelated things as a boxing match, self-defense, and fighting for food in a starvation situation. If you could please stay on-topic, and stop trying to stuff my position full of fluff.

“I never said there aren't many wife beaters.”

You are right, you didn’t directly say that. I misread that part of your comment. Sorry, let me reword my point: “Why don’t you try to claim that most wife beaters did not have a father who beat their mother?” You answer that you suspect many wife beaters had a father who beat their mother, but imply that the proportions are small and the influential factor is low. At times you seem to reject the whole concept of learned aggression, but at other times you seem to reject the idea that it also applies to sexuality. Here you say you “suspect” it exists with wife beaters but question how often or how strongly.

I think it’s time you better defined your argument. Let me reword that. I think it’s time WE better defined our positions. Let me make a suggestion, and you reply: My position is that learned aggression is a SIGNIFICANT factor in pedophilia; yours is that learned aggression is not a significant factor in pedophilia. While I’m going to continue here by presuming that is accurate, you correct me if I’m wrong.

“I find it dubious in the extreme that large percentages of any type of criminal have hundreds of victims. Do Mafia bosses rack up such numbers? And what does it have to do with the nature vs. nurture debate?”

See below.

Now you provide a paper to support your disagreement. But you admit that it is only “pointing out more pro-nature theories”. Far from disputing my position, it only profiles some natural causes for human violence. I have never argued against the existence of natural causes. Some people who lack enough serotonin are more prone to violence, but those kinds of things are either insignificant causes OR elements that only show violence IF the child has been exposed to violence. Your claim that “these findings lend support to the view that biological factors do indeed play an important role in at least some forms of aggression” doesn’t say much, and certainly doesn’t refute what I have been saying. In fact, your paper supports MY position about the significance of child abuse in causing aggression: “Childhood experiences appear to be especially powerful, because a child's brain is more malleable than that of an adult. A young brain is extra vulnerable to hurt in the first years of life. A child who suffers repeated abuse, neglect as well as terror experiences physical changes in his brain. The result is a child who shows impulsive aggression.” Yet, curiously, you STILL demand I provide evidence – even after it was in your own paper.

You claim you are using “pedophile” to mean “person with sexual attractions to children” whether or not they act on it, and that the attraction is inherently non-violent. Yes, well the problem with that is the topic of this thread – which is the crime of pedophilia. We are only discussing what generally causes it in that context, where it’s certainly not a confusion to equate “pedophile” with “child molester”. Please stop trying to “confuse” this thread and separate a violent act from its violence, and minimize the crime. And that’s not a “libelous” accusation. I have called your person no names nor accused it of anything; I only indict your written words. I haven’t even resorted to “grey-area insults” like calling your comments “moronic”. Again, you are trying to muddy the waters.

Speaking of “moronic”, the words of mine which you so characterize are only a description of the mechanics and dynamics of the cycle of abuse as it pertains to child-sex-abuse. If you look at the cycle, it could easily be translated that way. I am saying nothing new, only providing the gross details of what it actually says. Regarding Dr. Daugherty's optimistic-sounding comment about victims: even if it’s true (very vague and relative terms used there), it doesn’t dispute my position. You are trying very hard to discredit my claims and accuse me of exaggerating, but apparently persist in forgetting what topic we are discussing. Just to remind you, let’s have a look at a link;

-----------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100408/wl_nm/us_pope_abuse_germany
GERMAN CHURCH ABUSE HOTLINE FLOODED WITH CALLS
BERLIN (Reuters) – A German hotline for victims of sexual abuse by clerics was deluged with thousands of calls in the week after the Roman Catholic Church launched the counseling service in a bid to restore trust.
Some 13,293 people attempted to call the hotline over the course of the first week but only 2,670 were able to connect with the overwhelmed 11 counselors on duty, church officials said.
"We didn't expect so many calls," said Stephan Kronenburg, spokesman for the diocese of Trier where the hotline control center is located.
On its first day, the hotline received 4,459 calls.
-----------------------

Now remember how you disagreed that most pedophiles have large numbers of victims? Well maybe catholic priests are just REALLY GOOD pedophiles. LOL.

Regarding that, let’s go to evidence – you know, the stuff which you claim I have not so far provided – since most of the rest of your post is largely you asking me to prove most everything I have said. Well let’s see if you can also reject this:

http://www.apa.org/research/action/violence.aspx
“Decades of social science research has shown that since violence is mostly a learned behavior…”

Developmental risk factors for sexual offending
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-44XCWD9-8&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1289755800&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ce89808dbb584817b39476a82ca7fdb7
Childhood Sexual Abuse was found to be a specific developmental risk factor for pedophilia.

Sexual dysfunctions: Relationship to childhood sexual abuse and early family experiences in a nonclinical sample
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-3YB56FH-22&_user=10&_origUdi=B6V7N-44XCWD9-8&_fmt=high&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F1995&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2f863da79755e00854892f557c44d4bd
The data suggest that … sexual victimization contribute to sexual disorders in adulthood, and that later sexual disorders are to a large extent the result of sexual abuse-related factors

Sexual abuse history among adult sex offenders and non-sex offenders: A meta-analysis
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-4VXJVXV-6&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2009&_alid=1289775673&_rdoc=13&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5847&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=444&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=200323cae4e38e560c77d4f01a8d929f
We observed a higher prevalence of sexual abuse history among adult sex offenders than among non-sex offenders (Odds Ratio = 3.36, 95% confidence intervals of 2.23–4.82).
There is support for the sexually abused–sexual abuser hypothesis, in that sex offenders are more likely to have been sexually abused than non-sex offenders

[Pete_00]

Jesus tactic?

Maybe...just maybe. The illuminati were behind the story of the bible and Jesus too! And the whole time they promoted this story to the public THEY started being all Satanic.....

Just for the purpose of having the masses believe in Christianity where Revelations says that a world order WILL happen and everyone WILL take the mark of the beast.

:eek: Imagine that! Everyone microchipped slaves and NO Jesus to come back and save everyone because THEY MADE IT ALL UP! a 5 thousand year old conspiracy! :eek:

Just an idea.

hihihihihi!

The Illuminati are farseeing people.

[NYgs23]

Idirtify, first of all, we're still going around in circles regarding "act" vs "temptation" vs "trait" vs whatever else. My focus has been on people with the "sexual attraction to children." Or what you call "tendency/preference." I don't care what you call it; it's all the same to me. Presumably, we're trying to explain where the attraction comes from. Now, some people will act on the attraction and some will not, but I'm not focused on why some people with the attraction will act on it and some will not, only on the origin of the attraction in the first place. I don't see why that so difficult to understand.

Presumably, according to you, being molested as a child can imbue the victim with a sexual attraction towards children. That's what you're saying, is it not? Then I don't understand where this act/attraction confusion is coming from. Or are you saying that only those people who have sexual attractions to children from being molested are likely to molest, while those people who have inborn sexual attractions to children are not likely to molest? Is that what you're saying?

Or are you arguing about why people molest in general? As a already said, many people who molest are not actually pedophiles in the sense of being oriented towards children. Many adults act out in this way out of sense of loneliness or frustration or a desire for power, motivations which also arise from a complex matrix of biological and environmental factors. Or maybe they just happen to have a biological predisposition towards children. There's not one right answer. It differs from individual to individual.


My position is that learned aggression is a SIGNIFICANT factor in pedophilia; yours is that learned aggression is not a significant factor in pedophilia. While I’m going to continue here by presuming that is accurate, you correct me if I’m wrong.

Well, actually, what I've said is that pedophilia, like all sexual attractions arises from a complex variety of factors, both biological and environmental. So learned behavior may indeed be significant in many cases. But I also don't downplay that many people are probably born with a predisposition towards pedophilia (which may be exacerbated by environmental, personal, or cultural factors) What I mainly oppose is your implication that pedophilia spreads like contagious disease throughout society and that we should fear or molestation victims as likely offenders. That's not true. If it were true, we'd all be pedophiles already. It's simply not as clearcut as your making it out to be. Victims may be driven to act out sexually or violently in any number of ways (not necessarily in pedophilic ways) or they may become self-destruction and/or phobic about sex altogether or they may suffer no noticeable, longstanding effects. Child molesters can be motivated by a whole variety of different factors. Some actually find the physical form of the child attraction (true pedophilia); some do not but are motivated by power, desperation, complusion... Some who do have such an attraction may have been "born that way," others may have acquired it later on. For the vast majority, it will probably be an extremely complex matrix of factors that cannot be easily sifted, categorized, and diagnosed.

My problem is that you were painting with way to broad a brush, implying that pedophilia is a simple and predictable matter "pay it forward," so to speak, that in 90+% of cases we can assume that child molester was molested himself and would have been perfectly normal had he not been molested, and that the victim will turn into a molester him/herself. Well, no, that's a cartoon caricature with an element of truth (that being molested can, in some cases, drive the victim to molest). We can't make such assumptions. Each case is unique, and we have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis.

Regarding the articles you posted, I am glad your siting evidence. I don't dispute it. I just don't think it's the whole picture, especially your simplistic interpretation of it (that pedophilia is a contagious illness spread through orgasm or whatever). Here are some articles pointing to other sides of the story:

Left-handedness and pedophilia: Brain damage (http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/02/left-handedness-and-pedophilia-brain.php)


It seems that "pathological" left-handedness and pedophilia might share a common origin in some early developmental disturbance(s), possibly a brain infection (or group of infections).

Pedophilia May Be The Result Of Faulty Brain Wiring (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071128092109.htm)


The study, published in the Journal of Psychiatry Research, challenges the commonly held belief that pedophilia is brought on by childhood trauma or abuse. This finding is the strongest evidence yet that pedophilia is instead the result of a problem in brain development.

Pedophilia: Neuropsychological Evidence Encouraging A Brain Network Perspective (http://www.scientificblogging.com/ptsd_navigating_mindfield/review_pedophilia_neuropsychological_evidence_enco uraging_brain_network_perspective)


...this admittedly small study does give us an indication of a genetically related cause for pedophilia...

Now, I'm not saying anyone of these articles represents the whole of it. It's just part of the picture. Now I'm tired of this debate, so I will close for now.

[BlackTerrel]

Rabbi's do it too

YouTube - Date Line to Catch a Predator Jewish Rabbi David Kaye (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt6MmzRRYk0)

I guess the equivalent would be if this guy was moved to another Jewish Church rather than charged.

[heavenlyboy34]

No faith in governemnt

No faith in banks

No faith in the churches

No faith in Wall St.

No faith in Unions

WTF is left?

Individual liberty, voluntary society, and laissez-faire capitalism. :cool:

[idirtify]

Idirtify, first of all, we're still going around in circles snipped

We are only going in circles because of your clever attempts to confuse the issue and minimize the severity of pedophilia.

“Presumably, according to you, being molested as a child can imbue the victim with a sexual attraction towards children. That's what you're saying, is it not?”

Yes.

“Then I don't understand where this act/attraction confusion is coming from.”

From you.

“Or are you saying that only those people who have sexual attractions to children from being molested are likely to molest, while those people who have inborn sexual attractions to children are not likely to molest? Is that what you're saying?”

No; I never implied any such thing. It could be true, but it’s not related to this topic.

“Or are you arguing about why people molest in general?”

Yes, esp in terms of this thread.

“As a already said, many people who molest are not actually pedophiles in the sense of being oriented towards children. Many adults act out in this way out of sense of loneliness or frustration or a desire for power, motivations which also arise from a complex matrix of biological and environmental factors. Or maybe they just happen to have a biological predisposition towards children. There's not one right answer. It differs from individual to individual.”

Yeah right. And “many” violent criminals have an extra chromosome. But as you can see, your use of the word “many” doesn’t mean much. You are still talking about the vast minority of instances, especially within THIS subject matter. For all intents and purposes, the lesson to be learned here is that the main source of violence is the cycle of violence.

“What I've said is that pedophilia, like all sexual attractions arises from a complex variety of factors, both biological and environmental.”

But this thread is not about any sexual attraction. It is about a sexual attraction that is violent in its action.

“What I mainly oppose is your implication that pedophilia spreads like contagious disease throughout society and that we should fear or molestation victims as likely offenders. That's not true.”

Then you oppose one of the most fundamental elements of behavioral science; the generational cycle of abuse - which is nothing more than a name for the implication you worded so well. So either stand up and admit that what you oppose is this well-known concept, or explain how I have mistranslated it.

“If it were true, we'd all be pedophiles already.”

Well not quite yet. I can certainly speak for myself, and I think danno too. Seriously, I agree that not all pedophiles act out. The only reason all we males are not pedophiles yet is probably because plenty of victims do not respond sexually to the abuse; and the degree to which they act out later (or report the abuse) is probably related to the degree they responded sexually – as I essentially stated before.

“Victims may be driven to act out sexually or violently in any number of ways (not necessarily in pedophilic ways) or they may become self-destruction and/or phobic about sex altogether or they may suffer no noticeable, longstanding effects. Child molesters can be motivated by a whole variety of different factors. Some actually find the physical form of the child attraction (true pedophilia); some do not but are motivated by power, desperation, complusion... Some who do have such an attraction may have been "born that way," others may have acquired it later on. For the vast majority, it will probably be an extremely complex matrix of factors that cannot be easily sifted, categorized, and diagnosed.”

Yeah, and have you heard? …Many violent criminals have an extra chromosome!

“My problem is that you were painting with way to broad a brush, implying that pedophilia is a simple and predictable matter "pay it forward," so to speak, that in 90+% of cases we can assume that child molester was molested himself and would have been perfectly normal had he not been molested, and that the victim will turn into a molester him/herself. Well, no, that's a cartoon caricature with an element of truth (that being molested can, in some cases, drive the victim to molest). We can't make such assumptions. Each case is unique, and we have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis.”

No. Your real PROBLEM is the evidence (that you previously asked for and I provided). It supports what you are disagreeing with. Funny how you manage to maintain your previous claims in the face of conflicting evidence.

“Regarding the articles you posted, I am glad your siting evidence. I don't dispute it.”

Of course you do. Directly.
You wrote:
“I'm skeptical of the idea that the temptation to commit violence is predominantly a learned behavior.”
But the American Psychological Association wrote:
“Decades of social science research has shown that since violence is mostly a learned behavior…”.

With sentences like these you cleverly try to ignore the evidence:
“Social factors certainly play a role, but, to a great degree, aggression is inherent in human nature.” You only APPEAR to disagree with my position, but a closer analysis of its wording reveals that it does not. What is “to a GREAT degree”? It’s quite amusing to watch you expend such efforts.

Now regarding your links; it’s funny how they are all based on mal-development of the brain. Being based on that, they probably do not address a cause that is more UNDERLYING than being a victim of child abuse – which is well known for causing said mal-development. They act to be discovering a new cause, but are actually only observing an effect. It’s probably intentional, but that’s just speculation; a hint is how none of the three said anything about whether the subjects had been abused. Why would any decent controlled study have omitted such a huge factor as the abuse-history element – isn’t that what the idea they are competing with? Especially suspect is the one that deals with the dopamine reward system, which is well-known for being adversely affected by childhood trauma.

[idirtify]

Let’s have a focused look at a position of NYgs23 regarding its credibility.

In a recent disagreement to much of my criticism of pedophilia, specifically where I said “a very large percent of pedophiles report having many hundreds of victims each”, NYgs23 wrote:
“I find it dubious in the extreme that large percentages of any type of criminal have hundreds of victims.”

----------------------

http://www.thecatholiccoverup.com/article.php/20080521164218471
Broken Rites Australia helps victims of church-related sex abuse to obtain justice. Since Broken Rites began operating its Australia-wide telephone hotline in 1993, we have received thousands of calls and emails about incidents of abuse.
From these reports, we have built up a huge database of thousands of alleged incidents


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_re_us/us_church_abuse_wisconsin
Wis. priest accused of molesting 200 deaf boys


In the book PREDATORY PRIESTS, SILENCED VICTIMS: THE SEXUAL ABUSE CRISIS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Frawley-O’Dea and Goldner make the case that between 1950 and 2004 in the United States 5214 priests molested between 40,000 to 60,000 victims. And that estimate was well before this last round of news from Germany, the deaf boys school, Alaska, etc.


http://www.richardsipe.com/2010-03/Human_Toll.htm
Richard Sipe says the total victims since 1950 could be 100,000. And that was previous to this last round of news from Germany, the deaf boys school, Alaska, etc.


http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-pedophiles-paradise/Content?oid=1065017
The "Pedophile's Paradise"
“Alaska Natives are accusing the Catholic Church of using their remote villages as a ‘dumping ground’ for child-molesting priests”


http://www.atsa.com/ppPedophiles.html
Offenders, who seek out children to victimize by placing themselves in positions of trust, authority, and easy access to youngsters, can have hundreds of victims over the course of their lifetimes.


http://www.predators.tv/hickey/06aug.asp
Child molesters …often will have hundreds of victims before they are caught.


http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care-social-assistance/262277-1.html
TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR PEDOPHILIA
An untreated and unidentified pedophile can have hundreds of victims throughout his or her lifetime.


http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/reardon_developments.htm
Studies have shown that the “average" pedophile has hundreds of victims over the course of a lifetime.


http://www.atsa.com/ppOffenderFacts.html
FACTS ABOUT ADULT SEX OFFENDERS
Offenders who seek out children to victimize by placing themselves in positions of trust, authority, and easy access to youngsters can have hundreds of victims over the course of their lifetimes.


http://www.abusewatch.net/child_thesecret.php
The 'Secret:' the key to understanding child sex abuse
Men sexually attracted to young adolescent boys are the most persistent and prolific child molesters known to the criminal-justice system. Depending on how one defines molestation, they can easily have dozens if not hundreds of victims in a lifetime. They usually begin their activity when they are teenagers themselves and continue throughout their lives as long as they are physically able.

[silus]

Idirtify, first of all, we're still going around in circles regarding "act" vs "temptation" vs "trait" vs whatever else. My focus has been on people with the "sexual attraction to children." Or what you call "tendency/preference." I don't care what you call it; it's all the same to me. Presumably, we're trying to explain where the attraction comes from. Now, some people will act on the attraction and some will not, but I'm not focused on why some people with the attraction will act on it and some will not, only on the origin of the attraction in the first place. I don't see why that so difficult to understand.

Presumably, according to you, being molested as a child can imbue the victim with a sexual attraction towards children. That's what you're saying, is it not? Then I don't understand where this act/attraction confusion is coming from. Or are you saying that only those people who have sexual attractions to children from being molested are likely to molest, while those people who have inborn sexual attractions to children are not likely to molest? Is that what you're saying?

Or are you arguing about why people molest in general? As a already said, many people who molest are not actually pedophiles in the sense of being oriented towards children. Many adults act out in this way out of sense of loneliness or frustration or a desire for power, motivations which also arise from a complex matrix of biological and environmental factors. Or maybe they just happen to have a biological predisposition towards children. There's not one right answer. It differs from individual to individual.



Well, actually, what I've said is that pedophilia, like all sexual attractions arises from a complex variety of factors, both biological and environmental. So learned behavior may indeed be significant in many cases. But I also don't downplay that many people are probably born with a predisposition towards pedophilia (which may be exacerbated by environmental, personal, or cultural factors) What I mainly oppose is your implication that pedophilia spreads like contagious disease throughout society and that we should fear or molestation victims as likely offenders. That's not true. If it were true, we'd all be pedophiles already. It's simply not as clearcut as your making it out to be. Victims may be driven to act out sexually or violently in any number of ways (not necessarily in pedophilic ways) or they may become self-destruction and/or phobic about sex altogether or they may suffer no noticeable, longstanding effects. Child molesters can be motivated by a whole variety of different factors. Some actually find the physical form of the child attraction (true pedophilia); some do not but are motivated by power, desperation, complusion... Some who do have such an attraction may have been "born that way," others may have acquired it later on. For the vast majority, it will probably be an extremely complex matrix of factors that cannot be easily sifted, categorized, and diagnosed.

My problem is that you were painting with way to broad a brush, implying that pedophilia is a simple and predictable matter "pay it forward," so to speak, that in 90+% of cases we can assume that child molester was molested himself and would have been perfectly normal had he not been molested, and that the victim will turn into a molester him/herself. Well, no, that's a cartoon caricature with an element of truth (that being molested can, in some cases, drive the victim to molest). We can't make such assumptions. Each case is unique, and we have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis.

Regarding the articles you posted, I am glad your siting evidence. I don't dispute it. I just don't think it's the whole picture, especially your simplistic interpretation of it (that pedophilia is a contagious illness spread through orgasm or whatever). Here are some articles pointing to other sides of the story:

Left-handedness and pedophilia: Brain damage (http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/02/left-handedness-and-pedophilia-brain.php)



Pedophilia May Be The Result Of Faulty Brain Wiring (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071128092109.htm)



Pedophilia: Neuropsychological Evidence Encouraging A Brain Network Perspective (http://www.scientificblogging.com/ptsd_navigating_mindfield/review_pedophilia_neuropsychological_evidence_enco uraging_brain_network_perspective)



Now, I'm not saying anyone of these articles represents the whole of it. It's just part of the picture. Now I'm tired of this debate, so I will close for now.
Forgive me if I missed it, but for the sake of disclosure, can I ask what your interest is in this issue?

[Mini-Me]

Rabbi's do it too

YouTube - Date Line to Catch a Predator Jewish Rabbi David Kaye (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt6MmzRRYk0)

I guess the equivalent would be if this guy was moved to another Jewish Church rather than charged.

If we're going to bring rabbis into this, don't some rabbis suck the blood off a circumsized baby's penis with their mouths...? :eek: (Yeah, I know, that's for a different purpose, but still, it's the first thing I thought of. ;))

[NYgs23]

If you say so, idirtify. I'm know your always right. Becoming a pedophile is like becoming a werewolf. If one bites you, that's it. You're doomed to a life of drooling over the girl on the Coppertone bottle.


We are only going in circles because of your clever attempts to confuse the issue and minimize the severity of pedophilia.

I'm not going to continue arguing with you, and this is why. If you're going to use the tactic of ascribing sinister ulterior motives to an opponent instead of focusing on the arguments, there's no reason to continue any further. When you say that because I think pedophilia has a biological component, I'm trying to "minimize its severity" (Why would I do that? Because I'm a crypto-pedo? Or am I just a rank amoralist? Or am I a mustache-twirling devil-worshipper who cackles at children in pain? What are you actually accusing me of?) is no better than calling me anti-semitic if I criticize the Israeli govt or calling me pro-terrorist because I oppose the Iraq War or calling me a rich, greedy robber baron because I support the free market or a person who wants to see poor people die in the street because I'm against govt-funded health care. I mean, we've seen these tactics a million times before: throw poo around and see if it sticks. Gimme a break.

You accuse me of being deliberately obtuse, but it's you who's being obtuse (I won't go so far as to speculate if its deliberate). At any rate, no real reason to continue this any further. Bye bye.

[NYgs23]

Forgive me if I missed it, but for the sake of disclosure, can I ask what your interest is in this issue?

It's because I'm trying to "minimize the severity of pedophilia." You see, I have nine sons and daughters of my own, and I dream of the day that I can rent them out to bordellos without having to worry about the Fuzz. They just don't make very good money in the coal mines :(. Unfortunately, I was caught red-handed, so I'll have to go back to trying to hypnotize the President.

Actually, I was originally trying to correct--yet again--some of the misinformation being thrown around about the Catholic Church pedophile scandals. But I was struck by Idirtify's statement the child molesters "take an innocent child and forcefully...imprint for life a terrible sexual preference that is not genetic....Many will start abusing before they even know what’s going on (right after they were abused). Once a child is taught this aggression and experienced orgasm, they can become quite aggressive little sex fiends (where the phrases 'kid in candy store' and 'child with new toy' are all too accurate)." I'm made the passing remark that this sounded like bullshit, but then Idirtify proceeded to school me and show me that he/she is right. Pedophilia really is just like lycanthropy and the moment a pedophile diddles your five year old's winky, the child will transform into "an aggressive little sex fiend." But I guess it's not entirely a bad thing because it's like being in a candy store!

Now why don't you ask Idirtify what is his/her interest in the issue and why he/she is focused on children's orgasms.

[silus]

It's because I'm trying to "minimize the severity of pedophilia." You see, I have nine sons and daughters of my own, and I dream of the day that I can rent them out to bordellos without having to worry about the Fuzz. They just don't make very good money in the coal mines :(. Unfortunately, I was caught red-handed, so I'll have to go back to trying to hypnotize the President.

Actually, I was originally trying to correct--yet again--some of the misinformation being thrown around about the Catholic Church pedophile scandals. But I was struck by Idirtify's statement the child molesters "take an innocent child and forcefully...imprint for life a terrible sexual preference that is not genetic....Many will start abusing before they even know what’s going on (right after they were abused). Once a child is taught this aggression and experienced orgasm, they can become quite aggressive little sex fiends (where the phrases 'kid in candy store' and 'child with new toy' are all too accurate)." I'm made the passing remark that this sounded like bullshit, but then Idirtify proceeded to school me and show me that he/she is right. Pedophilia really is just like lycanthropy and the moment a pedophile diddles your five year old's winky, the child will transform into "an aggressive little sex fiend." But I guess it's not entirely a bad thing because it's like being in a candy store!

Now why don't you ask Idirtify what is his/her interest in the issue and why he/she is focused on children's orgasms.
I'm not going to ask Idirtify anything because clearly the conflict in this discussion is revolving around your position in defending the Church. So please don't naively throw at me this contrived notion of equality/double standard. I asked a simple question and you just lose it.

[idirtify]

If you say so, idirtify. snip

“If you say so, idirtify. I'm know your always right. Becoming a pedophile is like becoming a werewolf. If one bites you, that's it. You're doomed to a life of drooling over the girl on the Coppertone bottle.”

Sadly, I see you have abandoned more clever distractions and lowered your standards to discipline-free tactics. Can you not support your opinions? Do you not care about your posting credibility?

“I'm not going to continue arguing with you, and this is why. If you're going to use the tactic of ascribing sinister ulterior motives to an opponent instead of focusing on the arguments, there's no reason to continue any further.”

Poppycock! I’ve said nor implied no such unflattering thing to your person. The only thing I’ve “ascribed” is the most likely meanings to your typed words. And then I replied to them. I believe it’s called “focusing on the arguments”. If you feel you can’t continue, it’s surely not for the reason you claim here. BTW, if you can’t support your opinions, you are free to stop posting at any time. You really don’t have to announce it OR explain anything.

“When you say that because I think pedophilia has a biological component, I'm trying to ‘minimize its severity’ (Why would I do that? Because I'm a crypto-pedo? Or am I just a rank amoralist? Or am I a mustache-twirling devil-worshipper who cackles at children in pain? What are you actually accusing me of?)”

Obviously I have accused your person of nothing. If I had, you would simply quote it. Instead, your accusations consist of posting speculations on what I might be silently speculating about your person. Why you would do that, I haven’t the slightest idea – because you appear to be insulting your self in the process. For what reason(s) you might be trying to minimize the crime of pedophilia, I do not know – nor have I ever even insinuated. Your personal details are not important to the discussion. All I know is that your posts include said minimizations.

“is no better than calling me anti-semitic if I criticize the Israeli govt or calling me pro-terrorist because I oppose the Iraq War or calling me a rich, greedy robber baron because I support the free market or a person who wants to see poor people die in the street because I'm against govt-funded health care. I mean, we've seen these tactics a million times before: throw poo around and see if it sticks. Gimme a break.”

Calling you “anti-Semitic” is one thing. Claiming that your comments are trying to minimize anti-Semitism is another. I have done the latter, but not the former. Please look up “ad hominem”, and stop calling yourself so many terrible things – because I have called you nothing. Unless you can quote an example, you are simply fabricating the “tactics” you accuse me of committing.

Here you get very close to citing a specific example:
“You accuse me of being deliberately obtuse”.
But I don’t know what comment you are referring to. Please quote it. I don’t remember using either word. But I could be wrong.

Anyway, I’m not going to let you completely derail this discussion about the violent nature of pedophilia. Let’s get back on topic.

[idirtify]

It's because snip

“You see, I have nine sons and daughters of my own, and I dream of the day that I can rent them out to bordellos without having to worry about the Fuzz. They just don't make very good money in the coal mines . Unfortunately, I was caught red-handed, so I'll have to go back to trying to hypnotize the President.”

Be careful writing whole paragraphs about yourself like that. Often self-denigrating sarcasm doesn’t come across the internet well. Someone might think you were being serious. You would be wise to include a disclaimer that says you are not being serious, but only upset with your opponent because you can’t support your arguments.

“but then Idirtify proceeded to school me and show me that he/she is right.”

And that was my big error? I thought that’s what we were supposed to do when we make disagreements in discussion forums.

“Now why don't you ask Idirtify what is his/her interest in the issue and why he/she is focused on children's orgasms.”

Now THAT’S a clear insinuation about my person. Be careful; it borders on a direct insult, which is a violation here. But let me try to get this discussion back on topic by explaining the backwards nature of your insinuation. If I’m obsessed with anything, it’s with exposing the real main source of the crime of pedophilia, and explaining how it’s most certainly the worst kind of non-consensual violence inflicted on the most innocent of victims. I think there may be a number of libertarian types who mistakenly think it’s non-violent and consensual. And I absolutely love debating with them!!! So while you accuse me of being obsessed with children’s orgasms, the obvious reality is that I am obsessed with criticizing that obsession.

[NYgs23]

I'm not going to ask Idirtify anything because clearly the conflict in this discussion is revolving around your position in defending the Church. So please don't naively throw at me this contrived notion of equality/double standard. I asked a simple question and you just lose it.

Sorry, I was a bit miffed at being accused of trying to defend child molestation. That sort of accusation on the same level as playing the race card, and nothing could be further from the truth.

No, actually, by that point the discussion was no longer about the Church but about the origins of pedophilia: whether pedophiles become that way largely by being molested themselves or whether other factors play an important role.

[MelissaWV]

With the amount of snipping in this thread, I fully believe we can end molestation.

[idirtify]

With the amount of snipping in this thread, I fully believe we can end molestation.

LOL.

But sorry, I really should do a better job of quoting.

[MelissaWV]

LOL.

But sorry, I really should do a better job of quoting.

It's both of you ;) It's perfectly fine and actually appreciated (so we don't have to each wade through a blue sea of quote every time we open the thread). I just thought a little levity was in order.

[idirtify]

Sorry, I was a bit miffed at being accused of trying to defend child molestation. That sort of accusation on the same level as playing the race card, and nothing could be further from the truth.

False conclusion: Claiming an accurate read of your position is akin to making a racial slur against you.



No, actually, by that point the discussion was no longer about the Church but about the origins of pedophilia: whether pedophiles become that way largely by being molested themselves or whether other factors play an important role.



Let me take your subtly-strategic wording, and show a more accurate version:

No, actually, by that point the discussion had become about the origins of the Church’s pedophilia: whether it was mostly from the cycle of abuse or mostly from natural factors, and whether it was violent or non-violent.

[tmosley]

Can we move the sack of vitriol to Hot Topics now, please?

[idirtify]

It's both of you ;) It's perfectly fine and actually appreciated (so we don't have to each wade through a blue sea of quote every time we open the thread). I just thought a little levity was in order.

Oh, I see. You mean you would rather see my type of quoting?

I’m with you on keeping this discussion civil. I’ve been trying to keep my opponent from veering off into ad hominem and trying to steer the thread back on topic. But usually the best way to do that is to address the off-topic distractions when they are posted. Of course that risks making it appear as if I am helping the thread go off-topic. But a closer read will reveal the opposite.

[idirtify]

Can we move the sack of vitriol to Hot Topics now, please?

Let me give it another try to recharge the topic:

I would like to thank my opponent in this debate, who I think is done replying to me, for providing me with such great incentive to expound on important points about the origin of child molestation (and how to stop it). One of the reasons the disorder is epidemic is because much of the key information is not available or communicated. Thanks in part to vast ranges of emotions attached to topics about sex, and the controversial nature of the real meaning behind the “generational cycle of abuse”, truthful and frank information about these things is virtually non-existent. But the problem with discretion and candor and political correctness in this area only perpetuates the epidemic. We, as a culture and a civilization (root word: “civil”), can not afford to remain silent about this massive and ongoing and often organized crime.

But those aren’t the only things keeping the info suppressed. Often when social problems become so widespread, they start perpetuating themselves through massive campaigns of intentional silence and disinformation. I think this is especially true with this disorder. When enough sufferers of the disorder occupy enough positions in the establishment, truthful and honest information on it becomes effectively controlled/distorted. I hate to imply another giant conspiracy, but I think I am safe to say that combining an honest understanding of the cycle with an honest look at the news naturally implies a subculture-turned-establishment conspiracy of “body-snatcher” proportions. Don’t fall for the fallacy promoted by NYgs23, that it’s too big to be true. If anyone should know that’s not a basis, we should – as members of LF; who should know by now that very few things are as they appear. Although I’m confident these communications technologies will save our asses in the end, one unfortunate effect of free internet communication is the removal of our blinders and the temporary pain of the bright light. Pain is often an indication of hard truth.