Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
You don't need to attack me
English uses some words to represent a generalization without knowing the actual data. For example, the words many,some,over a thousand, and so forth isn't meant for specific data (unless cited). A lot of times it's not about the numbers but saying it's a lot and sometimes people use large numbers to refer to A Lot without needing cited sources for grammar.
I didn't cite anything; so, there is no reason to ask for sources when the intent was to how there "is a lot". See above.
Give me a logical connection between celibacy and child abuse that's not specific to priests.
Info without citations are usually opinions not in stone. Hence why we discuss.
You already have. Nothing wrong with that.
But I was responding to the OP. So, you're making a argument that has no foundation.
Hundreds
That doesn't sound to me like a good sample size
English uses some words to represent a generalization without knowing the actual data. For example, the words many,some,over a thousand, and so forth isn't meant for specific data (unless cited). A lot of times it's not about the numbers but saying it's a lot and sometimes people use large numbers to refer to A Lot without needing cited sources for grammar.
Where are you getting your data from? How are you concluding this?
I didn't cite anything; so, there is no reason to ask for sources when the intent was to how there "is a lot". See above.
And then, who's to say that celibacy wasn't part of the cause for those that did assault children? You're asumming celibacy affects all the same way.
Give me a logical connection between celibacy and child abuse that's not specific to priests.
You're making lots of assumptions to come to a conclusion.
Info without citations are usually opinions not in stone. Hence why we discuss.
Let me remind you that I have not asserted a position.
You already have. Nothing wrong with that.
But I was responding to the OP. So, you're making a argument that has no foundation.