Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

300 priests abused thousands of children over 7 decades in Pennsylvania

#31
Magical Realist Offline
(Aug 20, 2018 08:48 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Aug 20, 2018 08:13 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:any verbal or physical activity
directed toward a child that is sexual in nature and designed to establish a romantic or
sexual relationship with the child.

Sounds all very vague and conveniently subjective to me. A wink. A glance. An intonation of the voice. So many ways of interpreting something as a come on. And again, a come on is nothing compared to actual child molestation.

So "sexual in nature and designed to establish a romantic or sexual relationship" is vague...when pertaining to a child?! O_o
We're not talking about adults here, who have a much larger wealth of sexual experience with which to infer sexual intent. We're talking about children, who only realize something is wrong when it's fairly blatant.
You are a sicko. Sick

I suspect the vast majority of "come on" complaints about teachers come from oversensitive tweens and teens who resent their teachers for giving them too much homework. That's what I suspect.
Reply
#32
Syne Offline
(Aug 20, 2018 09:14 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: I suspect the vast majority of "come on" complaints about teachers come from oversensitive tweens and teens who resent their teachers for giving them too much homework. That's what I suspect.

Whatever you got to tell yourself to excuse the vast number of abuses.

"The seven-month investigation found 2,570 educators whose teaching credentials were revoked, denied, surrendered or sanctioned from 2001 through 2005 following allegations of sexual misconduct....At least half the educators who were punished by their states also were convicted of crimes related to their misconduct." - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...edirect=on
Reply
#33
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:"The seven-month investigation found 2,570 educators whose teaching credentials were revoked, denied,

Quote:as many as 4.5 million students, out of roughly 50 million in American schools, are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade.

2570 prosecuted cases out of 4.5 million reports? Yeah, that totally confirms my suspicion of false allegations...
Reply
#34
Syne Offline
(Aug 20, 2018 10:49 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: 2570 prosecuted cases out of 4.5 million reports? Yeah, that totally confirms my suspicion of false allegations...

If you bothered to read, you'd find out that many schools sweep accusations under the rug...the trusted adults conspiring to keep the children silent or discredited.
It's increasing clear that your antipathetic to children...unless they serve your purpose of smearing religion. Sicko.
Reply
#35
Magical Realist Offline
Yeah..a teacher putting a hand on a teenage student is comparable to a priest fucking a choir boy in the ass.
You're a pathetic sociopath trying to defend the papal rape of children for political reasons. You're disgusting.
Reply
#36
Syne Offline
(Aug 20, 2018 11:32 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Yeah..a teacher putting a hand on a teenage student is comparable to a priest fucking a choir boy in the ass.
You're a pathetic sociopath trying to defend the papal rape of children for political reasons. You're disgusting.

No one is defending those priests, and I have no love for Catholicism in general.
But of course, you would be the one to go find the lurid details about what priests did to little boys.

What's your excuse for defending public school abuse? Nothing, because you're just sick like that.
Again, I'm just pointing out the biased disparity of news coverage. Unlike you, I'm not excusing any of this behavior, even touching...which if allowed to go unchecked, leads to people dismissing the exact behavior that started the #MeToo.
Reply
#37
Ben the Donkey Offline
(Aug 20, 2018 06:40 PM)Syne Wrote: Yep, and SS is apparently still playing catchup...as if I ever said I had read Peterson. Rolleyes

Quit worrying your little head about me, Ben. You have no reason to fear me.

No one fears you, Syne. You're annoying, but little more. "annoying", though, invites a fight or flight response (or the internet equivalent) by its very nature, so one is obliged to either fire back or fade out of the conversation.

The problem, of course, is that people like you stifle discussion, you don't promote or encourage it. SS seems to tolerate fools more readily, and for longer periods of time, than I ever will.
It's become apparent you can neither remember the point of contention after a while, nor even what thread you're supposed to be arguing about. You've been fired up for two pages now because I used the word "read" instead of "watch". Or something. And what makes that even worse, is that I conceded that "point" (some might refer to it more as a triviality) some days ago. Do you honestly have nothing better to do than spend several days or pages typing in words to argue about whether you've watched or read Peterson? Really?

You're firing broadsides at nothing. Your counterarguments usually attempt to twist what anyone else says into something you can attack. 
I've been trying to work out if it's deliberate, or if your head just works that way. I've seen that before, but over the 'net it's a bit hard to tell. 

The "What's the frequency, Kenneth" quote was a reference to the incident with Dan Rather and William Tager. You're like Tager to me. I have no idea what is going on in your head, or why you keep shouting seeming nonsense.
It's not frightening, it's something to be treated with curiosity, and then antipathy. Like walking in mud - I'll do it for a little while, or if I have to, but not out of choice. 
You're the mud, just in case it isn't clear. I've just left another website due to people like you being prevalent...  seems it's difficult to get away from these days. It's interesting how internet forums have evolved over the years.

Perhaps you should ask yourself something, seeing as you seem to value Peterson so highly. It's something he'd no doubt ask you to define.
Enlighten everyone here when you have the answer.

What is your purpose, here?
Reply
#38
Syne Offline
Thanks you, Ben. What an absolute gem of a post.   Smile

(Aug 21, 2018 03:20 AM)Ben the Donkey Wrote:
(Aug 20, 2018 06:40 PM)Syne Wrote: Yep, and SS is apparently still playing catchup...as if I ever said I had read Peterson. Rolleyes

Quit worrying your little head about me, Ben. You have no reason to fear me.

No one fears you, Syne. You're annoying, but little more. "annoying", though, invites a fight or flight response (or the internet equivalent) by its very nature, so one is obliged to either fire back or fade out of the conversation.
I never said anyone was afraid of me, but this is twice now you've tried to refute what no one has said. I said:
(Aug 20, 2018 03:46 PM)Syne Wrote: Neither her nor Ben took me up on that offer. No doubt out of fear it would disabuse them of their biased assumptions.
But maybe you do fear the source of info, considering your penchant for genetic fallacies, rather than the info itself. Either way, you doth protest far too much, especially when you could easily just be intellectually honest and ask what I've read on the subject...instead of repeated straw men.

"Annoying" doesn't invoke fight or flight, only a threat does that. Maybe your ego shouldn't be so fragile as to be threatened by a stranger on the internet. And maybe this is a novel concept to you, but you can ignore whoever you like and continue conversations without them. I have at least three members on ignore right now....just so I don't have to see their drivel.  
Quote:The problem, of course, is that people like you stifle discussion, you don't promote or encourage it. SS seems to tolerate fools more readily, and for longer periods of time, than I ever will.
It's become apparent you can neither remember the point of contention after a while, nor even what thread you're supposed to be arguing about. You've been fired up for two pages now because I used the word "read" instead of "watch". Or something. And what makes that even worse, is that I conceded that "point" (some might refer to it more as a triviality) some days ago. Do you honestly have nothing better to do than spend several days or pages typing in words to argue about whether you've watched or read Peterson? Really?
It's you who provides all the red herrings about the site an article came from (without ever refuting anything in said article), the ad hominems about a site only you and SS thought worthy of delving deeper into, and countless fallacies in lieu of actual argument. And if you don't like the cross-pollination of threads, perhaps you should take that up with SS, the biggest offender.  And that's some whopping attentional bias or persecution complex to think that two pages have been about your choice of words.  Rolleyes  If you were actually paying attention, you would know that it only came back up because SS also wasn't paying attention. There was zero renewed criticism of you on that point, but then, it's fairly well-established that you take all this far too personally.  
Quote:You're firing broadsides at nothing. Your counterarguments usually attempt to twist what anyone else says into something you can attack. 
I've been trying to work out if it's deliberate, or if your head just works that way. I've seen that before, but over the 'net it's a bit hard to tell. 

The "What's the frequency, Kenneth" quote was a reference to the incident with Dan Rather and William Tager. You're like Tager to me. I have no idea what is going on in your head, or why you keep shouting seeming nonsense.
It's not frightening, it's something to be treated with curiosity, and then antipathy. Like walking in mud - I'll do it for a little while, or if I have to, but not out of choice. 
You're the mud, just in case it isn't clear. I've just left another website due to people like you being prevalent...  seems it's difficult to get away from these days. It's interesting how internet forums have evolved over the years.
Oh, I get that you don't know what a genetic fallacy is, even with a clear example: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-5894-p...l#pid22377
That you can't justify why you "spent half an hour on that Chateau Heartiste", except to use as straw man. Hell, that a lot of bullshit to read just in the attempt to stick it to little ol' me. That alone is far too emotionally invested.
Quote:Perhaps you should ask yourself something, seeing as you seem to value Peterson so highly. It's something he'd no doubt ask you to define.
Enlighten everyone here when you have the answer.

What is your purpose, here?
Again with the overwrought straw man about Peterson.  Rolleyes

As for why I'm here:
(Oct 11, 2016 04:49 AM)Syne Wrote: I debate to be challenged and sharpen my own thinking. People who respect your views are not likely to challenge you enough to test those views. No one can play devil's advocate to the their own views better than someone opposed to those views. I don't feel any need for respect from effectively anonymous strangers, and quite frankly, find it somewhat pathetic that anyone does.

"Agree to disagree" is either an oxymoron, an outright lie, and/or a thought terminating cliche to quell cognitive dissonance. None of these convey respect, except maybe as a superficial pleasantry to beg off.
Reply
#39
Ben the Donkey Offline
Look, Syne, all the "no, you are" method is tiresome. Frankly, I'm on the verge of ignoring you altogether, you're coming across as little more than a boring idiot these days.

As for the last part... there is no way your methodology is going to help "sharpen your thinking" or "provide a challenge".
How exactly, for example, does going on for days about whether you read Peterson or watch videos of Peterson "sharpen your thinking"? 

You don't address arguments, you merely sidetrack entire threads or twist up what other posters have said. Neither of these things is going to sharpen your thinking at all. You're lying about your motives, but of course its difficult to say whether its to yourself, or to me. The image I'm getting of you is De Niro practising his lines in the mirror in "Taxi Driver". 

I'd advise a different approach... which would require you stop lying to yourself about your motives, of course.
Your choice as to whether or not you take that advice.
Reply
#40
Secular Sanity Offline
(Oct 11, 2016 04:49 AM)Syne Wrote: I debate to be challenged and sharpen my own thinking.

We’re all here to exploit the power of information. We’re humans. That’s what we do. We’re all trying to convince each to make an exchange for either attention, time, effort, problems, or solutions.

It’s not all about problem solving, though because like you said, other people are also useful when they can help us identify our problems.

C C is really good at providing thought provoking questions and answers. Why, because she listens. She tries to understand what it is that you’re after. C2 is also pretty good at. There’s a certain amount of empathy involved in perspective taking and that is one of Ben’s strengths. That’s what makes him so useful.  He’s not only good at, he can usually sum it up in one or two sentences, a song, or a scene in a movie.

Stryder is hosting and C C is entertaining—coffee and conversation, that’s what it's all about. Some of us would prefer a pub or a cocktail party but that’s another story.

No one person knows it all, Syne. The know-it-alls don’t need to be here. They can stand alone. We’re losing members. Tone it down, please?

(Aug 12, 2018 03:22 PM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: That last bit is something I'm struggling to find words for.

If you can ever find the words…

Just like the alpha male, is a platonic friend also a mythical creature?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Research The DNA scandal that threatens thousands of criminal cases C C 0 60 Mar 8, 2024 07:13 AM
Last Post: C C
  After decades, prog faithful still waiting on magic cures of prog leadership to work C C 1 107 Dec 9, 2022 12:22 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Why thousands in the UK engaged in protests spurred by George Floyd death in US C C 24 2,251 Jun 10, 2020 04:55 AM
Last Post: stryder
  Sydney fireworks: Thousands sign petition to halt 'traumatic' show C C 0 260 Dec 29, 2019 11:14 PM
Last Post: C C
  Workers say Wal-Mart discriminated against thousands of pregnant women RainbowUnicorn 0 430 May 15, 2017 07:10 PM
Last Post: RainbowUnicorn



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)