Faith and Religion

[Pureblood]

Who said it would? Catholics make it easier for nonces to fuck kids.

 

The argument being made was that preventing sex contributed to the abuse.  I was responding to that.

[Rico1304]

That's a more sensible statement, but really quite different from the one you originally made.

So, are you honestly telling me that if the nonce had told them outside of confession it wouldnt have been different? Or if he'd told 30 random men none would have told the police?

 

The religion's rules created an environment where 30 (I'm assuming) decent men allowed a man to fuck kids.

[Rico1304]

More afraid of breaking the rules than protecting kids.

[Duff Man]

That still doesn't explain the likes of Saville etc.  Permitting sex won't get rid of child sex abuse.  

 

Of course it won't, but the point is they're creating an environment where child abuse is more likely to happen, for no good reason.

[Pureblood]

Of course it won't, but the point is they're creating an environment where child abuse is more likely to happen, for no good reason.

 

Whether or not it's more likely is debatable.

 

As I say, it's simply the vehicle of choice for some paedos who will have long standing desires to abuse children.  There are plenty of alternatives and you can't ban them all. 

[Duff Man]

Bit of a straw man, that. I'm not suggesting anything be banned. I'm suggesting that there'd be less chance of kids getting buggered if the person taking care of them was allowed to have normal sexual relations with another adult.

[Pureblood]

Bit of a straw man, that. I'm not suggesting anything be banned. I am definitely suggesting that there'd be less chance of kids getting buggered if the person taking care of them was allowed to normal sexual relations with another adult, though.

 

I've never been accused of the straw man before, I'm taking that as a compliment.

 

I disagree and think the propensity to abuse children is the driving force, not celibacy.  

[Strontium]

I would spend time picking those posts apart, but I'm talking to a pair of guys that can't be reasoned with on this subject. You're well and truly clouded in your judgment. If this was a different subject, I'd bet everything in my pockets that you'd have a completely different opinion. I mean, 'even you'.

 

I find that ironic, since all that me and Rico are guilty of is applying reason. I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally apply reason and logic to any and every topic I take an interest in. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

I bet you think it's a coincidence that these crimes, and hundreds more like them, have only come to light at precisely the same time that the New Atheist movement, which you are so fond of excoriating, became a thing. No sir, nothing to do with the extra scrutiny that religious organisations have been put under by those horrid acolytes of Dawkins.

[Strontium]

The Church is simply the vehicle of choice for some paedos, in the same way the BBC was for Jimmy Saville.  Whatchagonnado, ban everything?

 

Nobody's talking about banning anything.

 

Out of interest, that would be the same Jimmy Savile who was awarded a Papal knighthood by Pope John Paul II in 1990, yes?

[Pureblood]

There is very definitely a case for banning the Bible as hate speech.

 

 

Silly boy, all it took was a cursory search of this thread.

[Duff Man]

I've never been accused of the straw man before, I'm taking that as a compliment.

 

I disagree and think the propensity to abuse children is the driving force, not celibacy.  

 

I don't think it's either or. I just reckon fellas who have a normal healthy sex life, and with it all the associated benefits that brings, would be far less likely to go off and finger a choir boy.

[Rico1304]

I don't think it's either or. I just reckon fellas who have a normal healthy sex life, and with it all the associated benefits that brings, would be far less likely to go off and finger a choir boy.

Variety is the spice of life!

[Pureblood]

I don't think it's either or. I just reckon fellas who have a normal healthy sex life, and with it all the associated benefits that brings, would be far less likely to go off and finger a choir boy.

 

How would you define normal healthy sex life?  Already shaky ground, in my opinion.  

 

You have to remember that a lot of the abusers will have been abused themselves, so permitting marriage and "normal stuff" probably won't make much of a difference in those circumstances.  

 

I don't think it's either/or, I'm with you on that, but I don't think permitting marriage would change the culture that makes this kind of abuse easier. 

[Strontium]

Silly boy, all it took was a cursory search of this thread.

 

Saying that there is a case to be made for something is not the same as agreeing with it. I would expect a lawyer to understand that. There is a case to be made for a great number of things with which I would not agree, even many things I vehemently oppose. Indeed, I would argue that it's difficult to properly argue in favour of a proposition unless you fully consider and understand the case against it.

[Strontium]

I don't think it's either or. I just reckon fellas who have a normal healthy sex life, and with it all the associated benefits that brings, would be far less likely to go off and finger a choir boy.

I would say that it is wrong uns who are attracted to positions that place them in positions of trust, in particular positions of trust that have historically been unscrutinised by society thus giving them carte blanche to behave as they like.

[Pureblood]

Saying that there is a case to be made for something is not the same as agreeing with it. I would expect a lawyer to understand that. There is a case to be made for a great number of things with which I would not agree, even many things I vehemently oppose. Indeed, I would argue that it's difficult to properly argue in favour of a proposition unless you fully consider and understand the case against it.

 

Hehe, nice try Stronts.

 

You frequently talk about suppressing religion (the ones you don't like) and your avatar used to read "Imagine No Religion - It's Easy If You Try".

 

That's why I only needed to search this thread to find you talking about banning the Bible.  It's easy cos I tried. 

[Duff Man]

How would you define normal healthy sex life?  Already shaky ground, in my opinion.  

 

You have to remember that a lot of the abusers will have been abused themselves, so permitting marriage and "normal stuff" probably won't make much of a difference in those circumstances.  

 

I don't think it's either/or, I'm with you on that, but I don't think permitting marriage would change the culture that makes this kind of abuse easier. 

 

Someone who is freely able to act on sexual urges with another consenting adult, instead of struggle to suppress them.

 

Many priests have spoken about how difficult it is to abstain, and the mental strain it puts them under. It often leads to depression and other psychological issues. It just seems obvious to me that a person in this state is far more likely to abuse than someone who isn't. I mean at the very least, you'd have to concede it doesn't help?

[Numero Veinticinco]

I find that ironic, since all that me and Rico are guilty of is applying reason. I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally apply reason and logic to any and every topic I take an interest in. I wouldn't have it any other way.

As with all the things you attribute to yourself, mate; saying it doesn't make it true! But look, I've pretty much given up trying to convince you to be more balanced when the word religion comes up, so I'll bow out.

 

I bet you think it's a coincidence that these crimes, and hundreds more like them, have only come to light at precisely the same time that the New Atheist movement, which you are so fond of excoriating, became a thing.

 

Yes, I do. Unless there's any direct evidence to support it. Raisin frassen correlation raisin frassen causation raisin frassen logic and reason. If there is, I'll change my mind. I think the more moderate atheists have done a lot to broaden the range of rational thinkers, so I'm certainly not adverse to giving praise where it's warranted.

[Rico1304]

How would you define normal healthy sex life?  Already shaky ground, in my opinion.  

 

You have to remember that a lot of the abusers will have been abused themselves, so permitting marriage and "normal stuff" probably won't make much of a difference in those circumstances.  

 

I don't think it's either/or, I'm with you on that, but I don't think permitting marriage would change the culture that makes this kind of abuse easier.

 

So the culture does make the abuse easier. Thought so.

 

As an aside do you what the biggest factor likely to lead to a child being abused?

[Pureblood]

Someone who is freely able to act on sexual urges with another consenting adult, instead of struggle to suppress them.

 

Many priests have spoken about how difficult it is to abstain, and the mental strain it puts them under. It often leads to depression and other psychological issues. It just seems obvious to me that a person in this state is far more likely to abuse than someone who isn't. I mean at the very least, you'd have to concede it doesn't help?

 

I don't know if it helps or not.  I would ask, what is it about celibacy that would make a Priest more likely to abuse boys?  I mean, would there not be another outlet for their frustration or do they go straight into paedo mode?  

[Duff Man]

I would say that it is wrong uns who are attracted to positions that place them in positions of trust, in particular positions of trust that have historically been unscrutinised by society thus giving them carte blanche to behave as they like.

 

Yeah I think that's definitely going on, too. There will be myriad reasons why people abuse, and sometimes celibacy won't be a factor at all, but it almost certainly doesn't help imo.

[Duff Man]

I don't know if it helps or not.  I would ask, what is it about celibacy that would make a Priest more likely to abuse boys?  I mean, would there not be another outlet for their frustration or do they go straight into paedo mode?  

 

Who would you rather leave your child alone with; a sex starved man who's suffering mental health problems, or a chap who's in a loving relationship and getting laid three times a week?

[Pureblood]

Who would you rather leave your child alone with; a sex starved man who's suffering mental health problems, or a chap who's in a loving relationship and getting laid three times a week?

 

How do I tell the difference?  The sex starved man with mental health problems may be the wisest choice for all I know.  He may be the most compassionate, selfless human to have ever walked the earth.  Unfortunately he's not wearing a badge saying "Definitely Not a Paedo".

 

The chap in a loving relationship, getting laid three times a week, could be a porn addict who has never come close to satisfying his own sexual desires and has every intention of fucking my child once the wife has gone to bed.  He's not wearing a badge either.

 

Appearances can be deceptive.  

[Duff Man]

How do I tell the difference?  The sex starved man with mental health problems may be the wisest choice for all I know.  He may be the most compassionate, selfless human to have ever walked the earth.  Unfortunately he's not wearing a badge saying "Definitely Not a Paedo".

 

The chap in a loving relationship, getting laid three times a week, could be a porn addict who has never come close to satisfying his own sexual desires and has every intention of fucking my child once the wife has gone to bed.  He's not wearing a badge either.

 

Appearances can be deceptive.  

 

Sorry, I should have said, the sex starved man is wearing a "definitely a paedo" badge. He's also just got out of prison.

 

Look, it seems patently obvious to me that a practice that creates sexual frustration and mental health issues in these men can only exacerbate the situation, not improve it. Let them eat pie, I say, and see what happens. I bet there'd be less bumming of kids.

[Pureblood]

Sorry, I should have said, the sex starved man is wearing the "I'm a massive paedo" badge. He's also just got out of prison.

 

Look, it seems patently obvious to me that a practice that creates sexual frustration and mental health issues in these men can only exacerbate the situation, not improve it. Let them eat pie, I say, and see what happens. I bet there'd be less bumming of kids.

 

It's not patently obvious to me, and seems more likely that the propensity to abuse is already in place (e.g. as a victim of abuse in childhood themselves) rather than being caused/triggered by celibacy.  By all means let them eat pie but you'd have a job on your hands explaining things away the first time a married Priest was caught noncing.