Catholics Blame Gays for their Pedophile Problem

[The Voice of Reason]

Wow, the intellectual dishonesty can probrably be seen from space, it is so bright.

I'm sure it can. Let's take a look at it:

Why bother, you won't admit to them anyways.

I discussed your first example. I disagree with it, but then again, I understand what an ad hominem attack is. You, on the other hand, apparently do not.

I'll go through this once again, since you seem to want to act like you didn't make these claims: You claimed that I had committed at least one (and probably two) ad hominem attacks against you, and that I had tried to alter the debate by introducing two (or more) strawmen arguments. Those claims were made directly made by you.

You offered up a single instance as an example of an ad hominem. You and I disagree on whether it was actually an ad hominem attack, but that can be expected.

I have asked you two or three times now, to produce the other ad hominem as well as pointing out the strawman arguments. Oddly, you seem incapable of doing so. Now why would that be?

Indeed, I enjoy watching you bury your crediility further.

I certainly hope that my credibility doesn't suffer to the same degree that yours is, in this thread.

Point blank - you levied accusations against me. I asked you to substantiate them. Either you can, or you can't. If you can, please do so.

If you can't (which we both know that you can't), then at least be mature enough to admit that you were wrong.

Then you support anal rape, because everyone knows that's what occurs in male prison populations.

Well, while you are in the process of admitting that you were wrong about the logical fallacies, why not go ahead and admit that you have no intention of dealing with my position, but with what you want to portray my position to be. For the fifth or sixth time, I do not "support anal rape". A lesser man might begin to question why you are so fixated on that particular act.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Whether you see it or not, you are advocating rape.

What a train wreck of a post.

It reminds me of people that claim to be "pro-life" (but rarely are) insisting that anyone that disagrees with them are "pro-abortion". That assertion is completely wrong (as is yours above), but neither they nor you have the ability to understand the distinction.

Words have meaning. Those meanings are fixed - they do not bend to your will.

 

[AxisMundi]

Hmm, I think you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say gays = pedophiles.

Thanks for clarifying. Please consider it merely a Public Service Announcement.

That's a totally fair point, but there are both gays and straights who might have relations with attractive post-pubescent teenagers, that's not pedophilia, but it is illegal and inappropriate. The OP quoted Donahue as saying that 3/4 of these cases involved post-pubescent teens .... if that's "pedophilia" then there are a lot of heterosexual men who enjoyed Brittany Spears in her early days who are, apparently, not "heterosexuals" after all, they are pedophiles.

Not too long ago it was perfectly acceptable for a 16 year old girl to marry a man ten years her senior, or more. There are a few Civil War widows still alive, for one example.

Today's society considers this to be unacceptable, and has been made illegal in some states.

I beleive the correct term for a fixation on post-pubesent boys is pederast. Ic ould be wrong though, but I'm know you agree that a clergyman twiddling anyone under the age of consent is wrong.

Or was Donahue totally off base? I don't know why I assumed anything he said was factual....

Has he ever been on base?

 

[AxisMundi]

I'm sure it can. Let's take a look at it:

I discussed your first example. I disagree with it, but then again, I understand what an ad hominem attack is. You, on the other hand, apparently do not.

I'll go through this once again, since you seem to want to act like you didn't make these claims: You claimed that I had committed at least one (and probably two) ad hominem attacks against you, and that I had tried to alter the debate by introducing two (or more) strawmen arguments. Those claims were made directly made by you.

You offered up a single instance as an example of an ad hominem. You and I disagree on whether it was actually an ad hominem attack, but that can be expected.

I have asked you two or three times now, to produce the other ad hominem as well as pointing out the strawman arguments. Oddly, you seem incapable of doing so. Now why would that be?


I certainly hope that my credibility doesn't suffer to the same degree that yours is, in this thread.

Point blank - you levied accusations against me. I asked you to substantiate them. Either you can, or you can't. If you can, please do so.

If you can't (which we both know that you can't), then at least be mature enough to admit that you were wrong.

Are we done with the childish distractions now?

Well, while you are in the process of admitting that you were wrong about the logical fallacies, why not go ahead and admit that you have no intention of dealing with my position, but with what you want to portray my position to be. For the fifth or sixth time, I do not "support anal rape". A lesser man might begin to question why you are so fixated on that particular act.

Merely going by what you wrote in Post # 6.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Are we done with the childish distractions now?

What a complete and utter dodge. You made claims about my post and my position. You can't substantiate those claims, even though, if they were true, you would be able to quote them back to me - directly from this thread.

You portrayed yourself as being shocked at my lack of credibility - also on this thread.

You were told that it is YOUR credibility that is taking a beating, not mine.

And now, you still don't have the maturity to admit that you are simply wrong. Instead, you wish to move on and act as if you never made the claims. Bad news. People don't forget such actions, and I have no intention of letting up. Either produce evidence to support your claims, or admit that you were wrong. It isn't that hard to do. Sooner or later, you're going to have to admit that you are actually human. Even to yourself.

How very appropriate that you claim to not value someone else's views of your credibility.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not too long ago it was perfectly acceptable for a 16 year old girl to marry a man ten years her senior, or more. There are a few Civil War widows still alive, for one example.

The Civil War was around 1865, so even if they were widowed at the tender age of 1 they would now be 144 years old. Surely you're mistaken?

Today's society considers this to be unacceptable, and has been made illegal in some states.

I beleive the correct term for a fixation on post-pubesent boys is pederast. Ic ould be wrong though, but I'm know you agree that a clergyman twiddling anyone under the age of consent is wrong.

Absolutely.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

LOL only in some very weird dreams.

Source: Mental Health Services.

Which one? Got a link? I can't believe 70% of all women were molested as girls.

 

[AxisMundi]

What a complete and utter dodge. You made claims about my post and my position. You can't substantiate those claims, even though, if they were true, you would be able to quote them back to me - directly from this thread.

You portrayed yourself as being shocked at my lack of credibility - also on this thread.

You were told that it is YOUR credibility that is taking a beating, not mine.

And now, you still don't have the maturity to admit that you are simply wrong. Instead, you wish to move on and act as if you never made the claims. Bad news. People don't forget such actions, and I have no intention of letting up. Either produce evidence to support your claims, or admit that you were wrong. It isn't that hard to do. Sooner or later, you're going to have to admit that you are actually human. Even to yourself.

How very appropriate that you claim to not value someone else's views of your credibility.

Guess not.

 

[AxisMundi]

The Civil War was around 1865, so even if they were widowed at the tender age of 1 they would now be 144 years old. Surely you're mistaken?

Love doing that, it takes people by suprise.

I am (well, was, it's an expensive hobby) a Civil War living historian and a member of a few Civil War Decendant's organizations.

Part of the self-imposed duty we gladly undertook was to care for these widows, and to give them a proper send off as they passed away.

As the veterans aged, they would marry younger women, or girls. The girls got a regular paycheck during hard times, and the men got a young wife to care for them in their advanced age.

Last Union Widows

One should note that "Last Union/Confederate Widow" articles in newspapers almost always leads to a new widow coming forward.

 

[McBell]

[/b]

Are we done with the childish distractions now?

As a matter of fact, no, we are not done with YOUR distraction.
YOU made the accusations.
YOU refuse to support said accusations.
now YOU want to just move on and forget that you made a complete arse of yourself and refuse to own up for it?

I don't think so.

Merely going by what you wrote in Post # 6.

Post #6?
From THIS thread?

... and put into a cell with a person that would treat them just as they did the kids that they abused.

That is your two or three strawmen and two ad hominem?

How about this little gem you seem to be trying to forget:

Palm your face all you will. If my desire to see these people punished for their insidious crimes against children bothers you, then so be it.

We obviously disagree on how a pedophile should be treated, if they are convicted of these crimes. Obviously, you and the current pope see their actions as imminently forgiveable. If you think that a fair sentence for these lowest of criminals would be to have them shag their own golf balls at the driving range, then more power to you.

If it makes you feel better to label my position as "barbaric", or "uncivilized", I'll just have to live with that shame. In my world, people that abuse kids to this degree will pay a price for satisfying themselves in such a manner. And in my world, that price is high indeed.

Let's see, there's an ad hominem, another, a few strawmen...

BTW, having a person raped IS barbaric, there isn't any way you can prove or say otherwise.

Please point out the two ad hominem and the "few strawmen".

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Guess not.

Obviously you have no intention of either providing evidence of your claims, or admitting you were wrong (simply making things up). Not a problem.

From this point forward, I'm sure you'll understand when you get called out on credibility issues.

 

[McBell]

Guess not.

Damn right guess not.
Your dishonesty is not only disgusting, but needs to be called out for what it is.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Love doing that, it takes people by suprise.

I am (well, was, it's an expensive hobby) a Civil War living historian and a member of a few Civil War Decendant's organizations.

Part of the self-imposed duty we gladly undertook was to care for these widows, and to give them a proper send off as they passed away.

As the veterans aged, they would marry younger women, or girls. The girls got a regular paycheck during hard times, and the men got a young wife to care for them in their advanced age.

Last Union Widows

One should note that "Last Union/Confederate Widow" articles in newspapers almost always leads to a new widow coming forward.

Now isn't that odd. I followed your link (which was an article written in 2003), and according to it, Mrs. Alberta Martin of Elba, Alabama was the last surviving widow of a Confederate soldier. Mrs. Martin passed away in 2004 (according to Infoplease - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908934.html).

In a vain attempt to help you out, I also Googled up this story, about a lady named Maudie White Hopkins, who (sadly) passed away two years ago.

As a former "Civil War living historian", you seem to be misinformed on this issue. Perhaps you'd like to brush up on such claims. I know you wouldn't want to just make outrageous claims that were unsubstantiated.






What in the world was I thinking? I forgot that you don't care about your credibility, or what others think of it. I really must apologize for even bringing it up.

 

[footprints]

What a train wreck of a post.

It reminds me of people that claim to be "pro-life" (but rarely are) insisting that anyone that disagrees with them are "pro-abortion". That assertion is completely wrong (as is yours above), but neither they nor you have the ability to understand the distinction.

Words have meaning. Those meanings are fixed - they do not bend to your will.

With barriers of the mind, unreasoned positions, change to be reasoned postions, for the brain that carries them. Can you imagine anybody being that unreasoned, that they didn't know, that Pro-Choice meant, to include the added choice of Abortion, that every other option was already available for people to choose from and people already had pro (as in options of)-choice? That Pro-Choice does mean Pro, or For Abortion? That this, is what they were fighting for, to include the right of abortion as another choice?

Either a person is against rape, or they are for it? Either rape is wrong, or it is right? By condoning rape in goals, a person is for rape, and just as responsible as the perpetrator, unfortunately by society rules at this point in time, just not as accountable. The inmate is taught by the environment around them, that rape is okay, they then get released from goal and some people think that this knowledge now contained in their head, just magically goes away. People who condone rape in goal or turn a blind eye to it, are responsible for the rapists next victim.

 

[McBell]

. People who condone rape in goal or turn a blind eye to it, are responsible for the rapists next victim.

What a blatant load of steaming Bull ****.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

With barriers of the mind, unreasoned positions, change to be reasoned postions, for the brain that carries them. Can you imagine anybody being that unreasoned, that they didn't know, that Pro-Choice meant, to include the added choice of Abortion, that every other option was already available for people to choose from and people already had pro (as in options of)-choice? That Pro-Choice does mean Pro, or For Abortion? That this, is what they were fighting for, to include the right of abortion as another choice

If there is a any chance that you can compress this thought into a coherent sentence, I'd be glad to respond.

Either a person is against rape, or they are for it? Either rape is wrong, or it is right? By condoning rape in goals, a person is for rape, and just as responsible as the perpetrator, unfortunately by society rules at this point in time, just not as accountable. The inmate is taught by the environment around them, that rape is okay, they then get released from goal and some people think that this knowledge now contained in their head, just magically goes away. People who condone rape in goal or turn a blind eye to it, are responsible for the rapists next victim.

I would ask you a simple question. How many people that you know are "for rape", or stated another way, how many people that you know believe that rape is "right"?

 

[footprints]

Which one? Got a link? I can't believe 70% of all women were molested as girls.

I can't believe that 70% of ALL women were molested as children either. However when you stick to the facts of what was actually written, you get a clearer and more reasonable position.

Child sexual molestation is a vast field, and ranges from a child sitting on an adults lap with sexual overtones like a male gaining an erection due to the child, to complete sexual penetration. A child doesn't even need to be touched in order to have been molested, converstations with a sexual overtones with a child, constitutes molestation, as does watching child pornography, intentional exposure, watching a child get dressed or in the bath and gaining sexual pleasure from it. At the very worst end of the scale of child sexual molestation is sexual abuse, albeit in reality, none of it is ever good. The measure of what sexual molestation is, anything which has made the child feel sexually uncomfortable with, or even comfortable with at the specific point in time of happening, which they didn't really know was sexual molestation till many years later (ie coercion, grooming, an adult getting a few seconds of sexual pleasure from a child).

Most Western countries have a mental health service. For most part, western countries are about on par with worst case scenarios of child sexual molestation and equates to approximately 1 in every 3 girls to approximately, 1 in 6 boys. Many reports indicate girls are 3 times more likely to be molested when compared to boys. See some easy to find facts pertaining to the USA.

http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/sexual_abuse.htm

Unfortunately, not all countries release these figures or even bother to take them. The 6 - 7 figures are taken from Thailand, The Philippines and other such places around the world. The worst fact about these figures are, the girls are not so much being abused by people of their own culture, as they being abused by people of western cultures, America, Australia, Germany et al, who travel there to take advantage of children. Australia has now taken the step, of charging any perpetrator of such crimes under Australian Law, even though the offence may have been committed in another country.

 

[footprints]

What a blatant load of steaming Bull ****.

Bull whatever to some people, facts of knowledge to others.

You keep thinking that a person magically changes their mental position after they have been released from prison. Fairytales seem to suit you.

 

[Fredi]

I feel you have all missed a very valid point, this point was stressed in no uncertain terms by the podcast four's podcast available on iTunes which illustrated where facts and fiction regarding homosexuality and the abuse of minors is discussed thoroughly and expertly!!

 

[AxisMundi]

Post #6?
From THIS thread?

Yes, point? And has nothing to do with those things lsited below. The other poster claims he never advocated butt rape.

But I guess that's what happens when you jump into other people's conversations.

That is your two or three strawmen and two ad hominem?quote]
Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason
Palm your face all you will. If my desire to see these people punished for their insidious crimes against children bothers you, then so be it.

We obviously disagree on how a pedophile should be treated, if they are convicted of these crimes. Obviously, you and the current pope see their actions as imminently forgiveable. If you think that a fair sentence for these lowest of criminals would be to have them shag their own golf balls at the driving range, then more power to you.

If it makes you feel better to label my position as "barbaric", or "uncivilized", I'll just have to live with that shame. In my world, people that abuse kids to this degree will pay a price for satisfying themselves in such a manner. And in my world, that price is high indeed.
Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason
Palm your face all you will. If my desire to see these people punished for their insidious crimes against children bothers you, then so be it.

We obviously disagree on how a pedophile should be treated, if they are convicted of these crimes. Obviously, you and the current pope see their actions as imminently forgiveable. If you think that a fair sentence for these lowest of criminals would be to have them shag their own golf balls at the driving range, then more power to you.

If it makes you feel better to label my position as "barbaric", or "uncivilized", I'll just have to live with that shame. In my world, people that abuse kids to this degree will pay a price for satisfying themselves in such a manner. And in my world, that price is high indeed.

Palm your face all you will. If my desire to see these people punished for their insidious crimes against children bothers you, then so be it.

We obviously disagree on how a pedophile should be treated, if they are convicted of these crimes. Obviously, you and the current pope see their actions as imminently forgiveable. If you think that a fair sentence for these lowest of criminals would be to have them shag their own golf balls at the driving range, then more power to you.

If it makes you feel better to label my position as "barbaric", or "uncivilized", I'll just have to live with that shame. In my world, people that abuse kids to this degree will pay a price for satisfying themselves in such a manner. And in my world, that price is high indeed.

1. Insinuating that I do not wish to see these people punished, and therefor support pedophiles.
2. Insinuating that I support the pope's position, again insinuating that I do not wish to see these people punished and support pedophiles.

A. The "if my desire to see these people punished bothers you" comment.
B. The "fair treatment" comment. No where have I even suggested that pedophiles should get off easy.

Now, if this childish is done, let us continue.