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

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.

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

"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

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

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

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

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

"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

"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