301 Predator Priests...

[carpedm9587]

Actually there's an undistributed middle logical fallacy here. You're assuming that whether a Catholic priest identifies as gay or not is irrelevant to whether they tend to commit rape against boys.

Actually, I'm not.

It could be both be true that is a minority of priests that's doing it, and that its a minority of priests who are gay that's doing it, but that its mostly priests who consider themselves gay that are doing it.

Yes, and that does not alter the argument. Their argument is that "men who abuse boys are homosexuals." It follows, by their logic, that men that abuse girls are likewise heterosexual. So even if the vast majority of the 4% of guilty priests are gay men molesting boys, that leaves at least 54% (using that high gay estimate) of the priest population that is both homosexual and NOT engaged in these activities.

Let's take the extreme case (and by that I mean "thinking the worst of the homosexual priest population"):

1) Homosexual priests guilty of molesting boys: up to 4% of priest population
2) Homosexual priests innocent of molesting boys: at least 54% of the priest population
3) Heterosexual priests guilty of molesting girls: 1 (a ridiculously low number for argument's sake)
4) Heterosexual priests innocent of molesting girls: up to 42% of the priest population

Go after "homosexuals" and you attack both 1) and 2); 3) is off the hook.
Go after "molesters of children" and you attack 1) and 3) and the innocent are not attacked.

The just choice is pretty obvious to me. The only justification for attacking "homosexuals" in this context is that it has never been about "homosexual activity," and has always been about "being homosexual." There is no immoral act, even by their logic, if a man with a homosexual orientation takes and keeps a vow of celibacy.

[Sparko]

Way to ignore the argument, Sparko.

No you are the one ignoring the argument carp. By trying to change the argument to "the whole world" when we are talking about the Catholic Church.

Your little bait and switch game has not gone unnoticed.

Tell me, are most of the child abuse cases in the Catholic Church man on female child, or man on male child?

[One Bad Pig]

Tell me, are most of the child abuse cases in the Catholic Church man on female child, or man on male child?

Neither; they're male on post-pubescent male.

[Sparko]

Neither; they're male on post-pubescent male.

I would still consider that a child for the purposes of my question to Carp.

[rogue06]

I would still consider that a child for the purposes of my question to Carp.

As does the law.

[Leonhard]

Neither; they're male on post-pubescent male.

Wasn't the term they had to use to describe this 'ephebophilia'? That is attraction to young men between thirteen and seventeen?

[Leonhard]

Actually, I'm not.

Then don't present a syllogism. Because constructed that, it does have that logical fallacy.

Their argument is that "men who abuse boys are homosexuals." It follows, by their logic, that men that abuse girls are likewise heterosexual.

The argument if it is correct, and I don't know if it is, would be that most of the men who abused these boys did so because of a homosexual desire. That most of them are homosexuals. That could be true. It would still only be a minority of the all those men in the priesthood who have those urges.

I personally don't believe that people are completely one or the other. Some mostly prefer women, some mostly prefer men. The proportion is skewed as a lot more men prefer women than they do other men, and there the preference is rather strong as well.

So even if the vast majority of the 4% of guilty priests are gay men molesting boys, that leaves at least 54% (using that high gay estimate) of the priest population that is both homosexual and NOT engaged in these activities.

If your argument was simply that the majority of gay priests aren't committing these crimes, then we'd both be in agreement. Then I simply mistook your argument. The sexuality angle though is not one I can easily dismiss, I think other factors are at play though, and I hesitate to speak on this subject.

[carpedm9587]

Then don't present a syllogism. Because constructed that, it does have that logical fallacy.

OK - I'm missing something. Where did I offer a syllogism?

The argument if it is correct, and I don't know if it is, would be that most of the men who abused these boys did so because of a homosexual desire. That most of them are homosexuals. That could be true. It would still only be a minority of the all those men in the priesthood who have those urges.

I personally don't believe that people are completely one or the other. Some mostly prefer women, some mostly prefer men. The proportion is skewed as a lot more men prefer women than they do other men, and there the preference is rather strong as well.

I agree. Human sexuality is a continuum, and relatively few of us are 100% (i.e., at either extreme). Most lie somewhere along the sexuality spectrum.

If your argument was simply that the majority of gay priests aren't committing these crimes, then we'd both be in agreement. Then I simply mistook your argument. The sexuality angle though is not one I can easily dismiss, I think other factors are at play though, and I hesitate to speak on this subject.

The only two arguments I made about sexuality was to point out that the psychiatric/psychology community classifies pedophilia as a mental disorder, not a sexual orientation, and that there is an inconsistency to associating child sexual abuse with sexual orientation for homosexuals when that is not done for heterosexuals.

[carpedm9587]

No you are the one ignoring the argument carp. By trying to change the argument to "the whole world" when we are talking about the Catholic Church.

Your little bait and switch game has not gone unnoticed.

Wow - you really do not get the argument. Oh well - I tried...

Tell me, are most of the child abuse cases in the Catholic Church man on female child, or man on male child?

Within the Catholic Church, specifically the abuse by priests, most of the abuse is male on male. I have not ever said otherwise. So here is the argument I HAVE been making.

Within the church, most abuse is male on male, and is being categorized as "a homosexual problem"

In the larger community, most of the abuse (and the percentage varies widely, but somewhere between 10 and 50% more) is male on female, yet is it NOT characterized as a "heterosexual problem."

Ergo - there is an inconsistency. To associate it with sexual orientation in one context, and not in the other is inconsistent. When you add to it the fact that the VAST majority of homosexual priests in the Catholic Church (over 92%, based on the 58% estimate preciously cited) are NOT involved with child sexual abuse and are maintaining there vow of celibacy, to impugn all of these good men is an injustice.

[Sparko]

Wow - you really do not get the argument. Oh well - I tried...



Within the Catholic Church, specifically the abuse by priests, most of the abuse is male on male. I have not ever said otherwise. So here is the argument I HAVE been making.

Within the church, most abuse is male on male, and is being categorized as "a homosexual problem"

In the larger community, most of the abuse (and the percentage varies widely, but somewhere between 10 and 50% more) is male on female, yet is it NOT characterized as a "heterosexual problem."

Ergo - there is an inconsistency. To associate it with sexual orientation in one context, and not in the other is inconsistent. When you add to it the fact that the VAST majority of homosexual priests in the Catholic Church (over 92%, based on the 58% estimate preciously cited) are NOT involved with child sexual abuse and are maintaining there vow of celibacy, to impugn all of these good men is an injustice.

Ok.

1. The difference in gender in the abused victims is not "mostly" heterosexual. From your own source it is nearly equal. I am assuming that most perpetrators are male in sexual abuse cases. Female perpetrators do exist but are way less common (like Teacher student cases). So given that most perps are male and the victims are split evenly among male and female, you can't say it is a "heterosexual problem" - you could say it is a MALE problem.

abuse.jpg

2. Like it or not, when someone describes people or groups, usually they don't bother mentioning the majority group. Like people describing a crime will usually not mention the perp's color unless it is not white. Because they assume that people will assume white unless mentioned because they are the majority group. So they will say "He was short with brown hair and blah blah blah" assuming he is white, but if he was black then they will mention that as a distinguishing characteristic. It is not racism, just built-in bias. Heterosexuals do the same thing. In this case they are calling attention to the fact that the abuse is mostly done by homosexuals because that is a distinguishing factor, where they probably would not if it was mostly heterosexual. Not to mention if it were mostly male priests abusing girl victims it would be pretty obvious that it was heterosexual abuse.

[Roy]

Within the Catholic Church, specifically the abuse by priests, most of the abuse is male on male.

How much is that influenced by Catholic orphanages being separated by gender so that priests look after boys while nuns look after girls and younger children?

[rogue06]

How much is that influenced by Catholic orphanages being separated by gender so that priests look after boys while nuns look after girls and younger children?

Probably not very much at all at least here in the U.S. since orphanages have been nearly completely replaced with foster homes for several generations now.

[Roy]

Probably not very much at all at least here in the U.S. since orphanages have been nearly completely replaced with foster homes for several generations now.

Because of the systematic cover-up and suppression, many of the abuse cases being reported now (e.g. here, here) date back that far.

[carpedm9587]

Ok.

1. The difference in gender in the abused victims is not "mostly" heterosexual. From your own source it is nearly equal. I am assuming that most perpetrators are male in sexual abuse cases. Female perpetrators do exist but are way less common (like Teacher student cases). So given that most perps are male and the victims are split evenly among male and female, you can't say it is a "heterosexual problem" - you could say it is a MALE problem.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30405[/ATTACH]

So, first, that was only one source and I gave you the one most leaning towards your position (I try to give the other person the "benefit of the doubt." The reality is, most other sources cite numbers between 10 and 50% higher (girls over boys).

But even with this problem, while it is true that is is mostly males that commit this particular crime, it's not a "male problem" either. Listing it as such impugns all males, and most of us are not doing these things. That is the problem with labeling this a "homosexual problem" - most homosexuals are NOT doing this. But you stigmatize an entire group of people by labeling it that way.

2. Like it or not, when someone describes people or groups, usually they don't bother mentioning the majority group. Like people describing a crime will usually not mention the perp's color unless it is not white. Because they assume that people will assume white unless mentioned because they are the majority group. So they will say "He was short with brown hair and blah blah blah" assuming he is white, but if he was black then they will mention that as a distinguishing characteristic. It is not racism, just built-in bias.

This is an interesting comment on your part, especially given the way I have previously noted how built-in bias (also known as "implicit bias") is a real phenomenon that impacts people in many ways and was thoroughly denounced for my left-leaning liberal agenda. Yet here you seem to be saying it is a real phenomenon.

Heterosexuals do the same thing. In this case they are calling attention to the fact that the abuse is mostly done by homosexuals because that is a distinguishing factor, where they probably would not if it was mostly heterosexual. Not to mention if it were mostly male priests abusing girl victims it would be pretty obvious that it was heterosexual abuse.

And my point is that such a "habit" is damaging, especially when it involves an already disparaged and vilified group. It's like labeling "terrorism" a "Muslim problem." People hear that description, and suddenly all Muslims are suspect. Or labeling "violence" an "immigration problem." Our language reflects our underlying biases, and it can incite those biases further. In the case of the Catholic Church, the numbers suggest that the vast majority of homosexual priests are NOT engaging in such behavior - well over 90% of them. To label the problem a "homosexual problem" associates all homosexuals with the problem. Yet that 92+% group is innocent - they are fulfilling their vows and (according to your moral framework) not even acting immorally because they are celibate. So why do such damage to them? Unless, of course, the "it's not being homosexual that's a problem, it's homosexual acts" is not actually true - and being homosexual is actually a problem for you and others who think like you.

[carpedm9587]

How much is that influenced by Catholic orphanages being separated by gender so that priests look after boys while nuns look after girls and younger children?

It has been noted multiple times that priests have far more interaction with boys than girls for a variety of reasons (e.g., alter boys, gender-specific schools, orphanages, camps/camping, etc.)