Irish Marriage Equality Referendum Draws Near

[Ben Kenobi]

So as long as they don't sodomize each other but instead have other forms of intercourse it's ok ...

Would such an act be considered sexual or platonic? You have your answer.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you want to deny marriage to the impotent?

We're in agreement then, that the Church doesn't teach that you can't be with the one you want to be with?

[giblets]

1. Nice job changing the subject. What, should we ban all adoptions because in some cases birth certificates have been altered?
2. The second quote in your signature is out of context. Either post the full sentence of take it down please.

[Aeson]

We're in agreement then, that the Church doesn't teach that you can't be with the one you want to be with?

No. You are misinterpreting "be with".

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Nice job changing the subject. What, should we ban all adoptions because in some cases birth certificates have been altered?

I'm curious what you think since you believe she has two moms. Are you ok with altering birth certificates to eliminate the father?

2. The second quote in your signature is out of context. Either post the full sentence of take it down please.

How about no? It's not out of context at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. You are misinterpreting "be with".

Well, then. That confirms my statement since you seem to believe that you can't be with someone unless you're having sex.

[Aeson]

Would such an act be considered sexual or platonic? You have your answer.

It would be sexual. But it wouldn't be sodomy. You claimed sodomy was the limiting factor.

[Aeson]

Well, then. That confirms my statement since you seem to believe that you can't be with someone unless you're having sex.

No. You are misinterpreting "be with".

[Aeson]

How about no? It's not out of context at all.

Yes it is out of context.

[grumbler]

Which accurately cited the study and the important points of the study.

I prefer to use the actual source. You prefer to use a summary that you can only claim accurately represents the important points of the study whose data I use. Why not use the primary source? That's what honest debaters use.

Again, that doesn't change the fact that only 0.12 percent of the total priests n the United States were convicted in a court of law. You can argue against those numbers to your heart's content, but that doesn't change the actual facts of the matter.

I refuse your attempt to move the goal posts. Your initial argument was that "there's nothing to indicate that Catholic priests abuse any more than men of the general population." I've decisively disproven that statement. You can weasel around that the data shows that they didn't go to jail for it, but that's not relevant to the argument. There is a study run by the John Jay Center for the US conference of bishops that shows that there is, indeed, something to indicate that Catholic priests abuse more than the general population. QED, your statement was untrue.

"Taking action" is defined to include things like reassignment of priests to a different diocese. First you're arguing that reassignment was done to protect priests, now you're arguing it was done to punish them. Personally if a priest has been accused of sexual misconduct and is innocent, reassignment would be appropriate as it's unlikely the priest will want to continue serving there. Would you want to serve for a diocese where people are falsely accusing you of being a molester? Hardly. Priests are people too.

You need to actually READ the John Jay Center report. I am not arguing anything about why priests were moved. Actions were taken AGAINST 90% of the priests accused. Weasel all you want.

I have read the John Jay report as well as others. The data is actually pretty stark. Statistically, although the individual cases are pretty widespread - the concentration is not. 4 dioceses have something on the order of the third of the total abuse cases in all of the US, and that is not evenly distributed by offenders. While the most likely number of offenses per offender is 1, the range goes higher, much higher. So, even though one can claim that it was widespread, the data is overwhelming concentrated on a few offenders and towards molestation of boys.

You obviously haven't read the John Jay report, to make such a claim. In fact, the report directly refutes your 'research:"

The consistency of the findings in dioceses across the United States is remarkable: whether
region, number of Catholic communicants or number of parishes is used to array the dioceses,
the results show allegations of sexual abuse have been made against 2.5% to 7% of diocesan
priests.

Why that is I'll lead as an exercise to the reader.

Indeed. I will, as well.

Gosh. Which I argued was contained in the report? Except that I didn't argue that at all. I simply said that the conviction rate is about the same. Now why might an ex-boy scout know about such things?

Nope. I quoted your contention. Your attempt to move the goal posts is vetoed.

Just because you lack this information doesn't mean that the information is actually not out there. Again, the conviction ratio is not much different between the two. Are boy scout leaders committed to the organization, or are they volunteers who can simply be fired? Would that have an effect on the 'disciplinary' stats?

We have no data on conviction rates in other cases. The data compares accusations and actions taken by parent organizations. That data shows a rate 90 times higher for priests than even for other organizations especially at risk.

A fact that the Jay report does not support. You can say that, that doesn't make it true, since you're assuming that:

1, both organizations have similar standards of sanctions?
2, that both organizations have similar reporting standards.

You cannot acept the John Jay Center report when you hink it supports your contentions 9which it never does) and reject it when you think ti doesn't. the data is the data, no matter how disastrous it is for your argument.

Arguing that those whom the Catholic church relocated are guilty of molestation is circumstantial evidence, at best. The only good, solid number we have is the 0.12 percent of priests convicted of sexual abuse in the United States.

I have no idea what argument you are even attempting here. the whole "relocation" strawman is your argument, not mine. You don't even have numbers for relocation, so relocation isn't evidence. The solid data we have is that actions were taken AGAINST 3.6% of the priests in the US by their organization, a rate 90 times that of another especially vulnerable organization (and more than 90 times as great as against members of Big Brothers, etc.

As for the idea that these priests not imprisoned were innocent, again, the John Jay Center report blows this out of the water:

Of the alleged incidents investigated by the dioceses and religious communities, a
definitive result of the investigation was reported for 5,681 cases. Of these cases, 4,570,
or 80%, were substantiated; 1,028, or 18%, were unsubstantiated; 83, or 1.5%, were found
to be false

Note that there are a further 345 priests not investigated because the claims weren't deemed credible enough to warrant investigation.

Still, that's 428 priests of whom it was thought allegations were false, 1,028 of whom the allegations could neither be proven nor disproven, and 4,570 priests for whom the allegations were substantiated. That's just one study. But it is probably representative according to the church itself.

If it's not clear whom was the batterer, then it's impossible to conclude anything about any of these statistics.

Face it Grumbler. Your argument got crushed by the actual facts.

I leave the readers to decide who was crushed, but I agree that its impossible to prove anything by the statistics on partner abuse.

As I said, you believe that an adults' sexual desires are more important than the right of a child to have a mother and a father.

I refuse to grant you permission to tell me what I believe. You may get your beliefs from others, but I will get my on my own.

Just like I suppose the right to life is an absurdity too?

I think your supposition is silly, like your arguments.

Do you believe that people have a right to have sex with whomever they choose?

No. Nor do I believe in secret invaders from Mars, or the Illuminati, or vampires. I do believe that Babylon 5 was the best of the classic 1990s SF shows.

[Ben Kenobi]

I prefer to use the actual source. You prefer to use a summary that you can only claim accurately represents the important points of the study whose data I use. Why not use the primary source? That's what honest debaters use.

Curious then you reject the 0.12 percent conviction rate of priests in the Catholic church, something that the Jay study actually cites. It's in the primary source, so by all rights you should be agreeing with what your source actually says.

I'm not contesting your citation, only your claims as to what the source states. I'm also contesting your assertion that the article is inaccurate. Where?

I refuse your attempt to move the goal posts.

What goal posts? I rely on actual evidence, and the best evidence is the actual conviction rate. This is America, not some banana republic. We assume innocence until proven guilty.

I've decisively disproven that statement.

Where? The conviction rate is .12 percent. By your own source.

that the data shows that they didn't go to jail for it, but that's not relevant

Given that the argument is about proven abuse, I should damn well think it's relevant! That you're pretending it isn't relevant means that this data is devastating to your case!

that shows that there is, indeed, something to indicate that Catholic priests abuse more than the general population.

Well sure. Catholic priests are all men. But they do not abuse more than the general population of men. This has been refuted already in the thread.

You need to actually READ the John Jay Center report. I am not arguing anything about why priests were moved.

Why do liberals always assume that people who disagree with them haven't read the report? I read it years ago. I teach for the Catholic church so it's massively relevant to me. You are arguing why the priests were moved - you're arguing that them being moved is proof that they are abusing children. Which is, at best, circumstantial evidence.

Actions were taken AGAINST 90% of the priests accused. Weasel all you want.

It's wholly circumstantial evidence. Just because you desperately want it to be bigger than reality doesn't make it so.

You obviously haven't read the John Jay report, to make such a claim. In fact, the report directly refutes your 'research:"

Odd, given that the source states that 81 percent of all abuse victims were boys.

Do you have an explanation for this?

Your attempt to move the goal posts is vetoed.

You brought up boy scouts, and decided that you thought the comparison was relevant. Now you're arguing that the comparison is not? Odd that. IF you don't have the conviction rates, I'm not sure why you're making a case off circumstantial evidence when better evidence is available.

We have no data on conviction rates in other cases.

You have no conviction data on the boy scouts. Perhaps you should keep looking. Then you can make a valid comparison. Unless, of course, that would make the comparison that you dislike which would be harmful to your case.

The data compares accusations and actions taken by parent organizations.

What about convictions? In America, or so I'm told, we consider people to be innocents until proven guilty. This is all circumstantial. Why not compare convictions?

That data shows a rate 90 times higher for priests than even for other organizations especially at risk.

Again, it's all circumstantial, and relies on assumptions which are not true. The actual conviction rate was .12 percent of all priests in the United States. The majority (80 percent) ordained prior to 1979.

You cannot acept the John Jay Center report when you hink it supports your contentions 9which it never does) and reject it when you think ti doesn't. the data is the data, no matter how disastrous it is for your argument.

Which is why you're rejecting the evidence cited by the Jay report on convictions?

I have no idea what argument you are even attempting here.

Perhaps you should re-read it until you start to understand it.

As for the idea that these priests not imprisoned were innocent

You're assuming they were guilty. We don't do that in America.

Of these cases, 4,570, or 80%, were substantiated; 1,028, or 18%, were unsubstantiated; 83, or 1.5%, were found
to be false Note that there are a further 345 priests not investigated because the claims weren't deemed credible enough to warrant investigation.

So 4,570 incidents among how many priests? 58,632. What percentage is that? Assuming an average of 5 incidents per convicted priest, that nets us a ratio of 914 abusive priests among 58,632 total. Or 1.55 percent of all the priests.

I refuse to grant you permission to tell me what I believe. You may get your beliefs from others, but I will get my on my own.

So how does that contradict my statement that you believe that a parent's sexual desires outweigh their children's right to a mother or father?

I think your supposition is silly, like your arguments.

Ah. So why then is murder wrong, if people do not possess a right to life.

No.

Then why is it an issue when something that you don't believe is a right conflicts with something else that you don't believe is a right?

[Ben Kenobi]

You are misinterpreting "be with".

Then what's your beef with the Catholic church?

[Aeson]

Then what's your beef with the Catholic church?

My beef is with your dishonesty and/or ignorance.

[Elok]

Utilitarianism is a type of virtue ethic.

No. They are two completely distinct branches of ethics. One says things are bad because they have bad consequences, the other that things are bad because they turn you into the sort of person who does bad things.

[Aeson]

Naw, they're essentially the same thing since we live in a causal universe. Value ethics have ends (even if it's just to maintain their virtue) that they view as important to achieve, even if they want to pretend they aren't ends or those ends didn't influence them. Consequentialists have virtues (those traits which align with actions that will lead to the desired consequences) even if they don't want to admit they are virtues.

Everyone is choosing that which presents the most perceived value. They just have different subjective notions of what value different things present, and different predictions in regards to what the results of their choice will be.