Gay marriage thread

[Ferretfancy]

Originally Posted by amateur51 View Post
Scotty, it is generally accepted that child abuse is not about sex and sexuality but about the aberrant expression of power.

Does your statement here means that, whether or not am51's remark is a fact or an opinion, you "disagree" with it" and, if so, on what specific grounds? Has it not occurred to you to think about this kind of activity as sexual predation, wherein by definition its sexually abusive aspect is seen to be an intrinsic constituent of that "aberrant expression of power" to the extent that, in practice, the one cannot realistically be separated from the other?

I would add that in law the age of consent is defined by the concept of informed consent, in other words,underage children are deemed to be not yet capable of understanding the complex implications of what they might be doing and must be protected. Paedophiles sometimes try to justify their behaviour by suggesting that the children take pleasure in what is happening, but it should be obvious that this is cruel abuse of power on the part of the perpetrator, who probably knows full well what he or she is doing.

Perhaps there is a slight similarity in argument here when we consider that churches are astute enough to begin the indoctrination of young children long before they are able to understand religious concepts. I wouldn't push it too far, but the same principle is in operation.

[scottycelt]

Originally Posted by amateur51 View Post
Scotty, it is generally accepted that child abuse is not about sex and sexuality but about the aberrant expression of power.

Does your statement here means that, whether or not am51's remark is a fact or an opinion, you "disagree" with it" and, if so, on what specific grounds? Has it not occurred to you to think about this kind of activity as sexual predation, wherein by definition its sexually abusive aspect is seen to be an intrinsic constituent of that "aberrant expression of power" to the extent that, in practice, the one cannot realistically be separated from the other?

No, Ams51's opinion is not a fact it is simply an opinion. There may be many reasons for 'sexual predation' but the most obvious one is sexual lust. In the same way, there may be many reasons for robbing a bank but the most obvious one is monetary greed.

Motives may vary from perpetrator to perpetrator and there may also be a mixture of motives involved, including a warped sense of power.

None of these possible motives can be established as fact in every single case as you and amsey appear to be claiming.

So I continue to concentrate on undeniable fact and not mere opinion, however well-informed.

[Pabmusic]

That is utterly absurd...There is no 'fallacy' about facts. I would have thought one might have preferred to have access to some of them before one pronounces judgement on anything...

Evil does not exist as any independent thing - it is a concept used to describe actions. People and institutions are not evil; acts are. My use of the word referred not to the immediate abusers (whose acts may or may not have been evil) but to the massive subsequent cover-ups by the Catholic Church, where people who should have been investigated were simply moved on or retired. That is what I regard as evil.

I gave a lengthy analysis of one of your posts (350) in which I pointed out the weakness of relying so heavily on logical fallacies. I was (I freely admit) a bit pedantic in calling the two fallacies you used by their ancient Latin names, but my point was serious. By relying on them, you had no argument at all and were reduced to direct attacks on me. You responded to my detailed post with "That is utterly absurd" - a general dismissal of the entire post that only emphasised that you had no answer.

I happen to agree that the majority of abuse may well occur in the home. But, in the context of allegations about the Church, so what? I know you don't mean that it's therefore all right if a lesser amount takes place within the Church, so why say it? I suspect it is to divert attention away from the Church issue by saying "we're all sinners", or something like it. Which is the tu quoque fallacy that I kept pointing out. It is not an acceptable argument, just an attempt at a smoke-screen.

[scottycelt]

I would add that in law the age of consent is defined by the concept of informed consent, in other words,underage children are deemed to be not yet capable of understanding the complex implications of what they might be doing and must be protected. Paedophiles sometimes try to justify their behaviour by suggesting that the children take pleasure in what is happening, but it should be obvious that this is cruel abuse of power on the part of the perpetrator, who probably knows full well what he or she is doing.

Perhaps there is a slight similarity in argument here when we consider that churches are astute enough to begin the indoctrination of young children long before they are able to understand religious concepts. I wouldn't push it too far, but the same principle is in operation.

Should we therefore refrain from 'indoctrinating' our children not to steal before they are able to understand such concepts such as the harm this does to others? Or not bother to 'indoctrinate' them to cross a busy road only when the pedestrian light turns green until they are old enough to read and understand the Highway Code?

I wouldn't push that too far either, Ferret ...

[ahinton]

No, Ams51's opinion is not a fact it is simply an opinion. There may be many reasons for 'sexual predation' but the most obvious one is sexual lust.

Obvious to you, perhaps -a nd on occasion yo may well be right - but beond that this is an opinion - your opinion - NOT a fact!

In the same way, there may be many reasons for robbing a bank but the most obvious one is monetary greed.

Not the best of analogies because it usually is monetary greed but, even then, it could on occasion be an attempt to undermine the sheer structure of bamkoing and what supports it.

Motives may vary from perpetrator to perpetrator and there may also be a mixture of motives involved, including a warped sense of power.

Ah - getting warmer now, scotty; good!

None of these possible motives can be established as fact in every single case as you and amsey appear to be claiming.

To the extent that each must be considered on a case by case basis, that's broadly true.

So I continue to concentrate on undeniable fact and not mere opinion, however well-informed.

But, as I've said, each case has to be assessed on its merits or otherwise and, until each one is so, under the crunity of public inquiry and/or police inquiry and subsequent judicial process - including legal appears and their conduct if, as and when applicable - neither you nor anyone else is or indeed can be in any position to claim "undeniable fact" status for any aspect of it!

[Flosshilde]

So I continue to concentrate on undeniable fact and not mere opinion, however well-informed.

Where does this 'undeniable fact' come from - apart from your own mind - "the most obvious [reason] is sexual lust". Something being 'obvious' doesn't make it a 'fact'.

[scottycelt]

Evil does not exist as any independent thing - it is a concept used to describe actions. People and institutions are not evil; acts are. My use of the word referred not to the immediate abusers (whose acts may or may not have been evil) but to the massive subsequent cover-ups by the Catholic Church, where people who should have been investigated were simply moved on or retired. That is what I regard as evil.

I gave a lengthy analysis of one of your posts (350) in which I pointed out the weakness of relying so heavily on logical fallacies. I was (I freely admit) a bit pedantic in calling the two fallacies you used by their ancient Latin names, but my point was serious. By relying on them, you had no argument at all and were reduced to direct attacks on me. You responded to my detailed post with "That is utterly absurd" - a general dismissal of the entire post that only emphasised that you had no answer.

I happen to agree that the majority of abuse may well occur in the home. But, in the context of allegations about the Church, so what? I know you don't mean that it's therefore all right if a lesser amount takes place within the Church, so why say it? I suspect it is to divert attention away from the Church issue by saying "we're all sinners", or something like it. Which is the tu quoque fallacy that I kept pointing out. It is not an acceptable argument, just an attempt at a smoke-screen.

Don't be so over-sensitive, Pab, I never made any 'direct attack' on you. That accusation is what I considered utterly absurd. I simply suggested there were double-standards applied by some here regarding child-abuse cases and that still appears to be thoroughly vindicated, at least to date. I also highlighted some facts which you seemed to dismiss as being irrelevant, though it's likely the victims wouldn't necessarily agree. We can all pick and choose our facts, is it not better to embrace them all before forming any sort of opinion?

You trot out all the familiar old media-type phrases like 'cover ups', smokescreens' etc etc and it appears you consider those in Church authority 30/40 years ago who failed to act in accordance with today's conventions to be more evil than the child-abusers themselves.

Okay, we simply agree to disagree and call it a day ...

[MrGongGong]

those in Church authority 30/40 years ago who failed to act in accordance with today's conventions
.

Why on earth do you insist on bending over backwards to defend these people ?
You can ditch the church you know.
It's incredible the hold that this organisation has over people in spite of everything it has done.

[Ferretfancy]

Should we therefore refrain from 'indoctrinating' our children not to steal before they are able to understand such concepts such as the harm this does to others? Or not bother to 'indoctrinate' them to cross a busy road only when the pedestrian light turns green until they are old enough to read and understand the Highway Code?

I wouldn't push that too far either, Ferret ...

Time and again, adults when remembering the abuse they suffered as children say that they knew they would not be believed if they accused their priest. They had been brought up by their family to believe that the priest was God's representative, sometimes seen as a family member. He would groom them into thinking that they should always obey, and their parents could not begin to think that their father in the church would commit such acts. Often, even the police would not listen to any allegations. This entrenchment of power has done huge damage, not only in matters of sexuality, but in other aspects, such as employment in countries like Ireland, where the church was too often an arbiter.
One of the men who have accused Cardinal O'Brien has said that as a young ordinand, he knew that the bishop had complete power in directing his life, and resigned the priesthood to save his integrity as a person.
I'm frankly tired of hearing all the arguments supporting this rotten institution in the face of the domination it still has over people's existence, and nothing will change until the whole Church is reformed, an unlikely event. Those who wish to continue the whole cycle of sin, guilt, and suffering are perfectly free to do so and believe whatever they wish, but please, let's get rid of all the immense and utterly damaging power that the Vatican continues to exert.

[amateur51]

No, Ams51's opinion is not a fact it is simply an opinion. There may be many reasons for 'sexual predation' but the most obvious one is sexual lust. In the same way, there may be many reasons for robbing a bank but the most obvious one is monetary greed.

Motives may vary from perpetrator to perpetrator and there may also be a mixture of motives involved, including a warped sense of power.

None of these possible motives can be established as fact in every single case as you and amsey appear to be claiming.

So I continue to concentrate on undeniable fact and not mere opinion, however well-informed.

Scotty you are truly a bam-pot if you seek equivalence between child abuse and bank robbery!

Where's your proof - fact if you like - about sexual lust? In the area of sexual abuse it's about power. And that's what religious institutions created by human kind so often degenerate into - loci of power. And it's is an observed fact that if you give someone power, s/he will use it, oft-times to the good but sometimes not.

[amateur51]

Evil does not exist as any independent thing - it is a concept used to describe actions. People and institutions are not evil; acts are. My use of the word referred not to the immediate abusers (whose acts may or may not have been evil) but to the massive subsequent cover-ups by the Catholic Church, where people who should have been investigated were simply moved on or retired. That is what I regard as evil.

I gave a lengthy analysis of one of your posts (350) in which I pointed out the weakness of relying so heavily on logical fallacies. I was (I freely admit) a bit pedantic in calling the two fallacies you used by their ancient Latin names, but my point was serious. By relying on them, you had no argument at all and were reduced to direct attacks on me. You responded to my detailed post with "That is utterly absurd" - a general dismissal of the entire post that only emphasised that you had no answer.

I happen to agree that the majority of abuse may well occur in the home. But, in the context of allegations about the Church, so what? I know you don't mean that it's therefore all right if a lesser amount takes place within the Church, so why say it? I suspect it is to divert attention away from the Church issue by saying "we're all sinners", or something like it. Which is the tu quoque fallacy that I kept pointing out. It is not an acceptable argument, just an attempt at a smoke-screen.

A valuable summary Pabs - many thanks

[amateur51]

Should we therefore refrain from 'indoctrinating' our children not to steal before they are able to understand such concepts such as the harm this does to others? Or not bother to 'indoctrinate' them to cross a busy road only when the pedestrian light turns green until they are old enough to read and understand the Highway Code?

I wouldn't push that too far eithlyer, Ferret ...

Irrelevant smoke-screen scotty - you're doing your 'case' no good with this unseem wriggling

[ahinton]

Don't be so over-sensitive, Pab, I never made any 'direct attack' on you. That accusation is what I considered utterly absurd. I simply suggested there were double-standards applied by some here regarding child-abuse cases and that still appears to be thoroughly vindicated, at least to date. I also highlighted some facts which you seemed to dismiss as being irrelevant, though it's likely the victims wouldn't necessarily agree. We can all pick and choose our facts, is it not better to embrace them all before forming any sort of opinion?

You trot out all the familiar old media-type phrases like 'cover ups', smokescreens' etc etc and it appears you consider those in Church authority 30/40 years ago who failed to act in accordance with today's conventions to be more evil than the child-abusers themselves.

Okay, we simply agree to disagree and call it a day ...

Scotty, we do not ALL "pick and choose our facts" and, not only are "phrases like 'cover ups', 'smokescreens'" et al not merely of the "familiar old media type", it also follows that those who consider them to be nothing more than that in the present context are indirectly seeking to brush "facts" under the carpet in order to discourage the possibility of their being revealed as facts; never mind smokescreens, there is usually no smoke without fire and, when sufficient potentially credible allegations of abuse and/or its wilful concelament by relevant authorities turning blind eyes and deaf ears to them are made, due inquiries are necessary and, if these do not then take place at all and/or are conducted with insufficient thoroughness and diligence, the risk that abuse and concealment offences continue to go unpunished remains a very real one.

Victims of abuse and/or its official concealment may not necessarily have different attitudes to facts purely by virtue of being victims; what they will sadly have, however, is practical first-hand experience of the abuse and/or its official concealment, which is a quite different matter.

I am not inclined to conclude from exchanges here, incidentally, that, notwithstanding the principal focus having been on the Catholic Church's involvement in abuse and its concealment, members here believe that the Catholic Church has any kind of monopoly on this kind of activity, since it has no such monopoly and never has done; I suspect, however, that what exercises some people particularly in regard to abuse and cover-ups within the Catholic Church is that some might assume that a Church ought to be the very last place where one might to expect to encounter such things.

[amateur51]

Time and again, adults when remembering the abuse they suffered as children say that they knew they would not be believed if they accused their priest. They had been brought up by their family to believe that the priest was God's representative, sometimes seen as a family member. He would groom them into thinking that they should always obey, and their parents could not begin to think that their father in the church would commit such acts. Often, even the police would not listen to any allegations. This entrenchment of power has done huge damage, not only in matters of sexuality, but in other aspects, such as employment in countries like Ireland, where the church was too often an arbiter.
One of the men who have accused Cardinal O'Brien has said that as a young ordinand, he knew that the bishop had complete power in directing his life, and resigned the priesthood to save his integrity as a person.
I'm frankly tired of hearing all the arguments supporting this rotten institution in the face of the domination it still has over people's existence, and nothing will change until the whole Church is reformed, an unlikely event. Those who wish to continue the whole cycle of sin, guilt, and suffering are perfectly free to do so and believe whatever they wish, but please, let's get rid of all the immense and utterly damaging power that the Vatican continues to exert.

[MrGongGong]

I think Edwyn Collins (a fine Glaswegian ) had a phrase that might be applied here..........