If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
I hate environmentalists
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:37:24 +0100, Chris H
wrote: In message , tony cooper writes On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:58:36 +0100, Chris H wrote: If that. You equate abuse to sexual abuse. Being bullied by other students, or by staff, is abuse, but a far different thing than sexual abuse. Yes I agree. However some forms of S/M are sexual Do you use "S/M" to mean something other than sadism and masochism? Is it *ever* non-sexual in nature? The answer is it depends. For the child victims it is non-sexual for the priest administering? . well.... you said it. Wha? How can it be non-sexual for a victim? How can sexual abuse be non-sexual? "Non-sexual" doesn't mean "non-enjoyable" or "not wanted". In the US, about 4,000 priests have been accused of molestation. See http://ncronline.org/node/2545 In which a catholic priest says that as of October 2008 "nearly 5,000 Catholic priests have sexually abused more than 12,000 children." Read more carefully. He didn't say that. He said that's what _USA Today_ reported. There are bound to be discrepancies in numbers. We'll never know the real count. We'll only know the number of priests who have been accused of molestation, and not all those who have been molested have come forward. The estimate used is a projection based on what we do know. Out of a total number of how many? (Found it... less that 47,000 according to the US government. http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs...002001/248.htm quoting The Official Catholic Directory, That was in 1998...Over a decade ago and numbers have been falling. So that is 8% or Catholic Priests sexually abusing children It gets worse than the 2-6% I first found. (Remember The general population figure is 1-2%) Is it math or logic that's your weak point? The 47,000 represents the total number of priests in 1998. The 4,000 or 5,000 represents the number of priests involved in reported molestations. The reported molestations go back in some cases 20 to 40 years, and were committed by priests who are now deceased, retired, or removed. Unless you have a figure for the total number of priests who are in office, and have, served over the past 4 decades, you can't do the math you've done. Really, you should have been able to figure that out on your own. While that is bad, what is just as bad is that the system protected these priests and allowed them to remain as priests. I agree. The number that protected them is at least another 8,000? assuming only two others knew of each case.... So we have 12,000 priests who are bad... So about it is about 8% of the priests having abused over 12000 children and if only two others are involved in cover ups for each priest you are looking at about a QUARTER of the US catholic church having some involvement. Now are you telling me that a quarter of the general population is involved in sexual child abuse and cover up? No. I'm telling you that your ability to generate meaningful statistics is near zero. The two covering up for the priests and tripling the figures doesn't play out, either. The covering-up was done at the diocese and arch-diocese level. Since a diocese includes several parishes, cover-ups don't double or triple the numbers. The cover-ups were still wrong - and, in one way, more serious than the actual offenses because they allowed the problems to continue - but your maths are in error. Archdiocese of Los Angeles The Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay out 60 million dollars to settle 45 lawsuits it still faces over 450 other pending cases. According to the Associated Press a total of 22 priests were involved in the settlement with cases going as far back as the 1930s. This type of entry should have tipped you off that your maths doesn't add up. How many priests who committed acts of molestation in the 1930s would be around today and in the 47,000 figure? It's probably necessary to say again that nothing I've said is in defense of the priests who committed the acts or the system that protected them, but I do object bogus arguments. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
I hate environmentalists
tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:37:24 +0100, Chris H wrote: In message , tony cooper writes On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:58:36 +0100, Chris H wrote: If that. You equate abuse to sexual abuse. Being bullied by other students, or by staff, is abuse, but a far different thing than sexual abuse. Yes I agree. However some forms of S/M are sexual Do you use "S/M" to mean something other than sadism and masochism? Is it *ever* non-sexual in nature? The answer is it depends. For the child victims it is non-sexual for the priest administering? . well.... you said it. Wha? How can it be non-sexual for a victim? How can sexual abuse be non-sexual? "Non-sexual" doesn't mean "non-enjoyable" or "not wanted". A spanking can be sexually arousing for the person giving the spanking or for the person receiving it or both or neither. Thus it can easily be non-sexual for the "victim". In the US, about 4,000 priests have been accused of molestation. See http://ncronline.org/node/2545 In which a catholic priest says that as of October 2008 "nearly 5,000 Catholic priests have sexually abused more than 12,000 children." Read more carefully. He didn't say that. He said that's what _USA Today_ reported. There are bound to be discrepancies in numbers. We'll never know the real count. We'll only know the number of priests who have been accused of molestation, and not all those who have been molested have come forward. The estimate used is a projection based on what we do know. Out of a total number of how many? (Found it... less that 47,000 according to the US government. http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs...002001/248.htm quoting The Official Catholic Directory, That was in 1998...Over a decade ago and numbers have been falling. So that is 8% or Catholic Priests sexually abusing children It gets worse than the 2-6% I first found. (Remember The general population figure is 1-2%) Is it math or logic that's your weak point? The 47,000 represents the total number of priests in 1998. The 4,000 or 5,000 represents the number of priests involved in reported molestations. The reported molestations go back in some cases 20 to 40 years, and were committed by priests who are now deceased, retired, or removed. Unless you have a figure for the total number of priests who are in office, and have, served over the past 4 decades, you can't do the math you've done. Really, you should have been able to figure that out on your own. While that is bad, what is just as bad is that the system protected these priests and allowed them to remain as priests. I agree. The number that protected them is at least another 8,000? assuming only two others knew of each case.... So we have 12,000 priests who are bad... So about it is about 8% of the priests having abused over 12000 children and if only two others are involved in cover ups for each priest you are looking at about a QUARTER of the US catholic church having some involvement. Now are you telling me that a quarter of the general population is involved in sexual child abuse and cover up? No. I'm telling you that your ability to generate meaningful statistics is near zero. The two covering up for the priests and tripling the figures doesn't play out, either. The covering-up was done at the diocese and arch-diocese level. Since a diocese includes several parishes, cover-ups don't double or triple the numbers. The cover-ups were still wrong - and, in one way, more serious than the actual offenses because they allowed the problems to continue - but your maths are in error. Archdiocese of Los Angeles The Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay out 60 million dollars to settle 45 lawsuits it still faces over 450 other pending cases. According to the Associated Press a total of 22 priests were involved in the settlement with cases going as far back as the 1930s. This type of entry should have tipped you off that your maths doesn't add up. How many priests who committed acts of molestation in the 1930s would be around today and in the 47,000 figure? It's probably necessary to say again that nothing I've said is in defense of the priests who committed the acts or the system that protected them, but I do object bogus arguments. |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
I hate environmentalists
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:36:51 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: tony cooper wrote: On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:37:24 +0100, Chris H wrote: In message , tony cooper writes On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:58:36 +0100, Chris H wrote: If that. You equate abuse to sexual abuse. Being bullied by other students, or by staff, is abuse, but a far different thing than sexual abuse. Yes I agree. However some forms of S/M are sexual Do you use "S/M" to mean something other than sadism and masochism? Is it *ever* non-sexual in nature? The answer is it depends. For the child victims it is non-sexual for the priest administering? . well.... you said it. Wha? How can it be non-sexual for a victim? How can sexual abuse be non-sexual? "Non-sexual" doesn't mean "non-enjoyable" or "not wanted". A spanking can be sexually arousing for the person giving the spanking or for the person receiving it or both or neither. Thus it can easily be non-sexual for the "victim". Then it wouldn't be sexual abuse. Something sexually arousing is not the same as something that is sexual abuse. You know, you can snip what you don't respond to. I'm snipping the rest of this because you did no respond to anything. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
I hate environmentalists
"John A." wrote in message ... On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:45:53 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" wrote: "John A." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:10:42 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: Dudley Hanks wrote: [...] BTW, DRS, I am not referring to any unorthodox Divine Dictation theory, not that the end result differs from the infusing Spirit school of thought by much. Of course it does. Or do you think that the movie "Cleopatra" starring Elizabeth Taylor, inspired by the life of the last Ptolemaic ruler of Egypt, was in fact an inerrant portrayal of that life? So... the bible is loosely based on characters created by god? You need to distinguish between Divine Inspiration and it's inevitable implications, as opposed to the more mundane mortal version... Inspiration is inspiration. Not when you are dealing with the Almighty... TakeCare, Dudley |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
I hate environmentalists
On 2009-04-17 23:43:30 -0700, John A. said:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:16:19 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2009-04-17 06:26:13 -0700, "whisky-dave" said: "Dudley Hanks" wrote in message news:ysOFl.23805$PH1.12017@edtnps82... Hmmm, divine flaws. However will the zealots dismiss them... Even when I was young and 'learnt' that jesus died for our sins, I couldn;t work out why God let King Herrod go around killing all those babies while looking for the baby Jesus, why didn't God just say he's over there in the stables don't kill all these innocent babies, which I assuemd they were all innocent, Jeus coudl have still have said to have died for ours sins. And then there's Brutus surely he's a hero, without him Jesus wouldn't have been caught and executed in the way he was. "Brutus?" Could you mean that other plot villain Judas? Or maybe Bluto. I like that. "The Popeye Bible," or perhaps "The Spinach Papers." -- Regards, Savageduck |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
I hate environmentalists
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John A. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:44:30 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" wrote: "John A." wrote in message . .. On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:45:53 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" wrote: "John A." wrote in message m... On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:10:42 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: Dudley Hanks wrote: BTW, DRS, I am not referring to any unorthodox Divine Dictation theory, not that the end result differs from the infusing Spirit school of thought by much. Of course it does. Or do you think that the movie "Cleopatra" starring Elizabeth Taylor, inspired by the life of the last Ptolemaic ruler of Egypt, was in fact an inerrant portrayal of that life? So... the bible is loosely based on characters created by god? You need to distinguish between Divine Inspiration and it's inevitable implications, as opposed to the more mundane mortal version... Inspiration is inspiration. Not when you are dealing with the Almighty... So he's not so powerful he can create a word that retains its meaning in his presence? Of course He could. But He wouldn't. Seems your theological education omitted the central fundamental topic of free will. -- Chris Malcolm |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
I hate environmentalists
tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:36:51 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: tony cooper wrote: On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:37:24 +0100, Chris H wrote: In message , tony cooper writes On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:58:36 +0100, Chris H wrote: If that. You equate abuse to sexual abuse. Being bullied by other students, or by staff, is abuse, but a far different thing than sexual abuse. Yes I agree. However some forms of S/M are sexual Do you use "S/M" to mean something other than sadism and masochism? Is it *ever* non-sexual in nature? The answer is it depends. For the child victims it is non-sexual for the priest administering? . well.... you said it. Wha? How can it be non-sexual for a victim? How can sexual abuse be non-sexual? "Non-sexual" doesn't mean "non-enjoyable" or "not wanted". A spanking can be sexually arousing for the person giving the spanking or for the person receiving it or both or neither. Thus it can easily be non-sexual for the "victim". Then it wouldn't be sexual abuse. Something sexually arousing is not the same as something that is sexual abuse. Probably not generally, but there could be cases- there are cases- of such. For example, the recent spate of woman teacher-under age male student liaisons. You know, you can snip what you don't respond to. I'm snipping the rest of this because you did no respond to anything. Good point. Trimming is thoughtful; ergo..... -- John McWilliams |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
I hate environmentalists
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:42:28 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote: tony cooper wrote: On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:36:51 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: tony cooper wrote: On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:37:24 +0100, Chris H wrote: In message , tony cooper writes On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:58:36 +0100, Chris H wrote: If that. You equate abuse to sexual abuse. Being bullied by other students, or by staff, is abuse, but a far different thing than sexual abuse. Yes I agree. However some forms of S/M are sexual Do you use "S/M" to mean something other than sadism and masochism? Is it *ever* non-sexual in nature? The answer is it depends. For the child victims it is non-sexual for the priest administering? . well.... you said it. Wha? How can it be non-sexual for a victim? How can sexual abuse be non-sexual? "Non-sexual" doesn't mean "non-enjoyable" or "not wanted". A spanking can be sexually arousing for the person giving the spanking or for the person receiving it or both or neither. Thus it can easily be non-sexual for the "victim". Then it wouldn't be sexual abuse. Something sexually arousing is not the same as something that is sexual abuse. Probably not generally, but there could be cases- there are cases- of such. For example, the recent spate of woman teacher-under age male student liaisons. I probably should have written a more definitive sentence: Something sexually arousing is not necessarily the same as something that is sexual abuse, but it can be. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
I hate environmentalists
"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message ... In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John A. wrote: On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:44:30 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" wrote: "John A." wrote in message ... On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:45:53 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" wrote: "John A." wrote in message om... On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:10:42 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: Dudley Hanks wrote: BTW, DRS, I am not referring to any unorthodox Divine Dictation theory, not that the end result differs from the infusing Spirit school of thought by much. Of course it does. Or do you think that the movie "Cleopatra" starring Elizabeth Taylor, inspired by the life of the last Ptolemaic ruler of Egypt, was in fact an inerrant portrayal of that life? So... the bible is loosely based on characters created by god? You need to distinguish between Divine Inspiration and it's inevitable implications, as opposed to the more mundane mortal version... Inspiration is inspiration. Not when you are dealing with the Almighty... So he's not so powerful he can create a word that retains its meaning in his presence? Of course He could. But He wouldn't. Seems your theological education omitted the central fundamental topic of free will. -- Chris Malcolm That's one of the problems with trying to say that the Bible is "the Word of God," or the "Words of God," or any other way you want to create a connection between a man-made organization (the Church) or written document and the infallibility of an all-powerful authority... But, hey, that hasn't stopped the zealots from trying for as long as history's been recorded. But, as I've noted in other posts, this is getting way to off topic. So, if you'd like to discuss it further, either e-mail me, or go to: http://www.discussion.dudley-hanks.com/opinion Or, find another, more appropriate group and point me towards it. Let's try to at least keep the posts to something with a remote connection to recreational photography here... Take Care, Dudley |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
I hate environmentalists
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2009041800084431729-savageduck@savagenet... On 2009-04-17 23:43:30 -0700, John A. said: On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:16:19 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2009-04-17 06:26:13 -0700, "whisky-dave" said: "Dudley Hanks" wrote in message news:ysOFl.23805$PH1.12017@edtnps82... Hmmm, divine flaws. However will the zealots dismiss them... Even when I was young and 'learnt' that jesus died for our sins, I couldn;t work out why God let King Herrod go around killing all those babies while looking for the baby Jesus, why didn't God just say he's over there in the stables don't kill all these innocent babies, which I assuemd they were all innocent, Jeus coudl have still have said to have died for ours sins. And then there's Brutus surely he's a hero, without him Jesus wouldn't have been caught and executed in the way he was. "Brutus?" Could you mean that other plot villain Judas? Or maybe Bluto. I like that. "The Popeye Bible," or perhaps "The Spinach Papers." -- Regards, Savageduck SD, haven't you heard about Shakespeare's religious folios? Take Care, Dudley |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Now it's OK to hate Jessops | [email protected] | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 5 | March 28th 06 09:50 PM |
Don't you just hate... | Martin Francis | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 4 | November 23rd 04 05:47 PM |
what I hate about film | Developwebsites | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | August 31st 04 12:57 AM |
I HATE these! why do they make them! | Sabineellen | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 8 | August 1st 04 03:01 AM |