GameBanshee Forums

Sorry Xandax, but quoting Wicki, which itself is quoting what I consider pseudo science (psychology) is just as bad as blaming their behaviour on demonic possession.

galraen wrote:Sorry Xandax, but quoting Wicki, which itself is quoting what I consider pseudo science (psychology) is just as bad as blaming their behaviour on demonic possession.

Only true when the quote in question does not involve any footnotes. I took care to quote only parts that were specifically footnoted by actual studies. Wiki is a starting point, you Galraen are invited to find contrary sources of info as well if you want to.

galraen wrote:Sorry Xandax, but quoting Wicki, which itself is quoting what I consider pseudo science (psychology) is just as bad as blaming their behaviour on demonic possession.

Then it should not be difficult to link actual science to contradict the "pseudo-science" other then "I think there's a correlation" when "I think there is not" is a perfectly valid rebuttal to such a claim.

Studies can come up with whatever answers the person running it want it too. Without scientific support, which is virtually impossible with this subject, the studies are IMHO meaningless.

What facts we have are that, as RPGGuy pointed out 'boys and girls go to church--->boys get raped', simplitsic? Yes, but to then try and argue against it using a study which requires honest answers from notoriously dishonest criminals is a waste of time. Who's word do we have that the perpetratores are otherwise hetorosexually oriented?

Apologies for going OTT with the pseudo science reference, but I do get annoyed when people argue against the obvious by quoting Wicki (itself notoriously unreliable) and making reference to extremely dubious studies.

To perpetrate the crimes they do, then the priests musty be at the very most Bisexual, but the evidence of their behaviourt indicates that they are in fact homosexual. Which, for clarification, I think we all agree doesn't mean that even a significant minority of homosexuals are paedophiles, a small minority as there is in the heterosexual community.

Unfortunatley, all that is achieved in classifying their behaviour as a result of pychological disorder is to give them a crutch to lean on. No matter what their inclinations, they knew what they were doing was wrong, criminal and, in their own terms, an unforgiveable sin; but they did it anyway.

galraen wrote:Studies can come up with whatever answers the person running it want it too. Without scientific support, which is virtually impossible with this subject, the studies are IMHO meaningless.

What facts we have are that, as RPGGuy pointed out 'boys and girls go to church--->boys get raped', simplitsic? Yes, but to then try and argue against it using a study which requires honest answers from notoriously dishonest criminals is a waste of time. Who's word do we have that the perpetratores are otherwise hetorosexually oriented?

Apologies for going OTT with the pseudo science reference, but I do get annoyed when people argue against the obvious by quoting Wicki (itself notoriously unreliable) and making reference to extremely dubious studies.

To perpetrate the crimes they do, then the priests musty be at the very most Bisexual, but the evidence of their behaviourt indicates that they are in fact homosexual. Which, for clarification, I think we all agree doesn't mean that even a significant minority of homosexuals are paedophiles, a small minority as there is in the heterosexual community.

Unfortunatley, all that is achieved in classifying their behaviour as a result of pychological disorder is to give them a crutch to lean on. No matter what their inclinations, they knew what they were doing was wrong, criminal and, in their own terms, an unforgiveable sin; but they did it anyway.

Noted, bashing wiki is not the answer though. Finding verifiable truth is. I guess I can drop it now, but tossing out the whole a study can be whatever it wants to be relegates everything to just being opinion. On that note in the absence of contrary proof, I will be the first to offer to agree to disagree and drop this matter altogether.

galraen wrote:Studies can come up with whatever answers the person running it want it too. Without scientific support, which is virtually impossible with this subject, the studies are IMHO meaningless.

What facts we have are that, as RPGGuy pointed out 'boys and girls go to church--->boys get raped', simplitsic? Yes, but to then try and argue against it using a study which requires honest answers from notoriously dishonest criminals is a waste of time. Who's word do we have that the perpetratores are otherwise hetorosexually oriented? <snip>

Firstly - sure a study can come up with the world is flat, and some person can state the simple fact: The world looks flat from my perspective. That however does not make it neither true.
And stating "boys and girls go to church --> boys get raped --> homosexuality" is quite a leap of more then faith.
If it was homosexuality that was the issue here, the priests or anybody in question could just as well engage in homosexual consensual behaviour. However, as that is not the case, it is just as easy to claim it is not the sexual orientation nature of the act which is the issue.
The molestation is happening due to it being children and the gender is secondary.
Also a factor is the type of molestation, meaning which acts are performed. Especially if it is going to be used as an indication of homosexuality over simply the act of abusing.

As for why it is more often boys, well - I'd like to see some documentation for the "fact" that it is an equal amount of boys/girls set in a position for being abused to allow for an equal division of victims.
Long standing traditions within that culture have meant it was primarily boys being "Altar boys" and thus being in the company of and a servant of the priest, also introducing the control factor.... just for example to illustrate that the statements in question are much more then simplistic.

galraen wrote:<snip>
Apologies for going OTT with the pseudo science reference, but I do get annoyed when people argue against the obvious by quoting Wicki (itself notoriously unreliable) and making reference to extremely dubious studies.
<snip>

And similar, I get annoyed when people make statements of fact without anything at all to back other then a "simplistic statement" to imply causation; meaning it is not factual by default, just because somebody claims a statement.

galraen wrote:<snip>
To perpetrate the crimes they do, then the priests musty be at the very most Bisexual, but the evidence of their behaviourt indicates that they are in fact homosexual. Which, for clarification, I think we all agree doesn't mean that even a significant minority of homosexuals are paedophiles, a small minority as there is in the heterosexual community.
<snip>

And once again - do you have anything to back up that "evidence" over the insight that the gender is a secondary concern compared to the actual possibility and situation.
And backed up by something other then random statements and "non-pseudo science"

OK Xandax, you believe what you wnt to believe and I'll carry on believing that people who engage in sex with people of their own gender are either homosexual or bisexual, and if they continue to indulge in it more likely the former than the latter.

And similar, I get annoyed when people make statements of fact without anything at all to back other then a "simplistic statement" to imply causation; meaning it is not factual by default, just because somebody claims a statement.

A good study is as useful as a good legal argument or a good statistic. It depends on who is constructing it and why.

Studies are suspect, usually generated to shock our conventional thinking. That's how they get attention, get published, get funded.

And since when did Game Banshee implement a policy stating that your opinion had to include several footnotes to Wiki? Isn't it possible for a man to have and state his opinion on something and then simply move on? I'm not running for Congress. I'm not trying to sway the hearts and minds (and wallets) of the masses. I'm just stating my opinion on the topic. I don't want to spend 8 hours writing and defending a thesis.

On a conscious or subconscious level I believe that repressed homosexual, pedophiles are drawn to environments where they have access, supply, opportunity to exploit little boys. In terms of accomplishing this with the greatest chance of avoiding discovery, scrutiny or punishment, the Catholic church is a notoriously enabling environment.

RPGguy wrote:snip
And since when did Game Banshee implement a policy stating that your opinion had to include several footnotes to Wiki? Isn't it possible for a man to have and state his opinion on something and then simply move on?

Uh never? I was rendering an invitation to have a study linked to to support your position. I was not rendering a demand. I could see we were starting to bite each others tails in a circle. That often happens when one person with strong opinion debates another with an opposite strong opinion.

usually a way out to resolve the conflict is to present outside information from an authority. I was not trying to undermine anyone here. I was looking for a source of information to back your opinion up so that in the possible event that I was wrong I could re-examine my belief. While I see nothing wrong with extending that information it seems I may have offended you by doing so, and for that I am sorry.

jkindlers, there is no reason for you to apologize. I was not referring to you in any sense.

Personally, I appreciate when people go to lengths to support an argument with studies or references. I just don't want to be scrutinized or damned if I chose not to put in the same effort. I don't have the patience and fortitude for long, drawn own, verbose, highly theoretical debates online. They rarely end well, let alone with some master consensus.

Any 'aware' reader/visitor will scroll through these comments and attach certain weights to certain arguments naturally. Those with more support tend to yield more sway. As it should be. And I am fine with that.

Carry on good sir.

RPGguy wrote:jkindlers, there is no reason for you to apologize. I was not referring to you in any sense.

Personally, I appreciate when people go to lengths to support an argument with studies or references. I just don't want to be scrutinized or damned if I chose not to put in the same effort. I don't have the patience and fortitude for long, drawn own, verbose, highly theoretical debates online. They rarely end well, let alone with some master consensus.

Any 'aware' reader/visitor will scroll through these comments and attach certain weights to certain arguments naturally. Those with more support tend to yield more sway. As it should be. And I am fine with that.

Carry on good sir.

Good to know, just remember I may make such a request in future, but I hold no rancour to those who don't bother. I rarely have no time for it either save that I am getting next to no sleep lately due to wacky work scheduling. The irritation may have been coming through my posts(I wouldn't know) and served as a second reason for the apology.

Off to work now.

RPGguy wrote:Little girls go to church too (Bible school, choir etc...). But you only hear about the boys being raped. There's obviously a correlation. So what are your theories on that?

No, there's been girls who have been molested and threatened if they squealed to the fuzz.

However, boys just have much more opportunity for fellowship in the Catholic church. There's a reason that pyrotechnics are more susceptible to being burned than the average person who lights fireworks only during New Years.

jklinders wrote:Odd. I don't have a subscription, and I was freely able to access them, One was from the CBC website CBC.ca - Canadian News Sports Entertainment Kids Docs Radio TV and the other 2 were from wikipedia, all are free sites.

Wikipedia articles have a list of references at the bottom, the reference I was referring to brought me to SpringerLink, which requires registration. You can't really trust Wikipedia for anything other than pop culture trivia (and even then, TVTropes is much more reliable), and need to look at the actual article that was quoted.

Don't have time for the rest of the wikiality debate, but...

Xandax wrote:And if not, that "correlation" is as useful as piracy and global warming.

I'll have you know that that correlation is one of the key tenets of my faith...