|
|
| Author |
Message |
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
 Posted: 03/01/04 - 18:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nuldaan wrote: | | Shanda wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | Get a clue, w***e. There's a reason these priests CHOOSE boys over girls. The reason is.....come on, now. You can't be that stupid. |
Actually, the most probably reason why priests prey on boys rather than girls is ACCESS. If you have any knowledge of the catholic church, you would know that it is, even today, pretty rare for a priest to have access to youn girls.
It isn't known what causes pedophelia, too much of the brain and it's malfunctions are still unknown. It is known that **** assults don't equate in any way with actual **** (how you would behave and the partners you would choose in a normal, consenting relationship between adults).
Outside the church, it is extremely rare to find homosexuals engaging in the **** assult of a minor. In almost all cases of men abusing boys (outside the church), it is a man that has heterosexual relationships in every other aspect of his life. Again, try visiting the DoJ or doing some *real* research on the subject.
To equate homosexuality with pedophelia as though they go hand in hand is ignorant. You do the math. |
Shan's completely right on this, Phoenix. Name calling and insults isn't going to change that fact. |
Wrong. Catholic alter girls have been allowed and admitted for decades. Choir girls have been around longer. There are camps with both **** and confession. It's open access, and if you had the slightest clue you would know this. But priests choose boys because they're gay. Now stop stadning up for homosexual pedophiles.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 19:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Phoenix, the point is that there are many more boys than girls, not whether they were allowed or not. Stick to the topic. Shan argued that access is what causes more boys to be taken advantage of, as opposed to homosexuality as you argue. You haven't and probably won't address that other than to draw some strange relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. Good luck with that one.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 19:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nuldaan wrote: | | Phoenix, the point is that there are many more boys than girls, not whether they were allowed or not. Stick to the topic. Shan argued that access is what causes more boys to be taken advantage of, as opposed to homosexuality as you argue. You haven't and probably won't address that other than to draw some strange relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. Good luck with that one. |
There are more boys than girls, but not many more girls. Not even a 4 to 1 ratio. And priests certainly have just as much access to girls, even if they are fewer in number. Only a homosexual would actively seek the boys over the girls.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Orbit
Luke Warm
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 491
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 19:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
Yeah.. Eric, respone to statements. Just dont dance around them... 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 19:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Phoenix wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: | | Phoenix, the point is that there are many more boys than girls, not whether they were allowed or not. Stick to the topic. Shan argued that access is what causes more boys to be taken advantage of, as opposed to homosexuality as you argue. You haven't and probably won't address that other than to draw some strange relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. Good luck with that one. |
There are more boys than girls, but not many more girls. Not even a 4 to 1 ratio. And priests certainly have just as much access to girls, even if they are fewer in number. Only a homosexual would actively seek the boys over the girls. |
Phoenix, try to read the entire argument. Not just mine, but Shan's, which the one I was referring to.
She has two main points. Priests have more access to boys (you already acknowledge this). And most pedophiles lead normal heterosexual lives when they aren't out molesting young children. (You've ignored this one).
Not surprisingly, you went after the first topic even though it supports her argument less. Deal with the entire argument or admit that you don't have a valid one and move on.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 19:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nuldaan wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: | | Phoenix, the point is that there are many more boys than girls, not whether they were allowed or not. Stick to the topic. Shan argued that access is what causes more boys to be taken advantage of, as opposed to homosexuality as you argue. You haven't and probably won't address that other than to draw some strange relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. Good luck with that one. |
There are more boys than girls, but not many more girls. Not even a 4 to 1 ratio. And priests certainly have just as much access to girls, even if they are fewer in number. Only a homosexual would actively seek the boys over the girls. |
Phoenix, try to read the entire argument. Not just mine, but Shan's, which the one I was referring to.
She has two main points. Priests have more access to boys (you already acknowledge this). And most pedophiles lead normal heterosexual lives when they aren't out molesting young children. (You've ignored this one).
Not surprisingly, you went after the first topic even though it supports her argument less. Deal with the entire argument or admit that you don't have a valid one and move on. |
I addressed hers already.
1) Priests DO NOT have more access to boys. There's roughly equal access. There are more boys, but if there are two boys and one girl in the room, he has equal access.
2) Many homosexuals lead heterosexual lives as well. The fact that a "heterosexual" molests a boy means that he is satisfying his homosexual desires.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Manuva
Banned
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2536
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 19:46 Post subject:
|
|
|
If you willingly f**k another male in the ass out of desire you are bi-**** at best.
Don't see what the whole argument is here.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 23:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Phoenix wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: | | Phoenix, the point is that there are many more boys than girls, not whether they were allowed or not. Stick to the topic. Shan argued that access is what causes more boys to be taken advantage of, as opposed to homosexuality as you argue. You haven't and probably won't address that other than to draw some strange relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. Good luck with that one. |
There are more boys than girls, but not many more girls. Not even a 4 to 1 ratio. And priests certainly have just as much access to girls, even if they are fewer in number. Only a homosexual would actively seek the boys over the girls. |
Phoenix, try to read the entire argument. Not just mine, but Shan's, which the one I was referring to.
She has two main points. Priests have more access to boys (you already acknowledge this). And most pedophiles lead normal heterosexual lives when they aren't out molesting young children. (You've ignored this one).
Not surprisingly, you went after the first topic even though it supports her argument less. Deal with the entire argument or admit that you don't have a valid one and move on. |
I addressed hers already.
1) Priests DO NOT have more access to boys. There's roughly equal access. There are more boys, but if there are two boys and one girl in the room, he has equal access.
2) Many homosexuals lead heterosexual lives as well. The fact that a "heterosexual" molests a boy means that he is satisfying his homosexual desires. |
Wrong...on both accounts
1) The number of males and females makes an obvious difference in the amount of access. Additionally, time spent with the children and time spent alone are obvious factors as well. For example, if there were 100 girls and 1 boy in the church, the initial conclusion would be that the priest has more access to girls. However, if the priest spent most of his time with the boy and was only ever alone with the boy, then the priest would have more access to the boy. Surely even you can see this. To carry that one step further, how much time do you think a priest is alone with those few girls that are a part of the church?
2) You continue to mistake **** desires with control issues. **** offenders (pedophiles or rapists) typically satisfy control and power issues through their offenses, not **** urges. It's not about ****, it's about power. I believe Shan pointed this out and you ignored it. In fact, you're still ignoring it and trying to draw incorrect conclusions based on a faulty cause/effect relationship.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 23:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nuldaan wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: | | Phoenix, the point is that there are many more boys than girls, not whether they were allowed or not. Stick to the topic. Shan argued that access is what causes more boys to be taken advantage of, as opposed to homosexuality as you argue. You haven't and probably won't address that other than to draw some strange relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. Good luck with that one. |
There are more boys than girls, but not many more girls. Not even a 4 to 1 ratio. And priests certainly have just as much access to girls, even if they are fewer in number. Only a homosexual would actively seek the boys over the girls. |
Phoenix, try to read the entire argument. Not just mine, but Shan's, which the one I was referring to.
She has two main points. Priests have more access to boys (you already acknowledge this). And most pedophiles lead normal heterosexual lives when they aren't out molesting young children. (You've ignored this one).
Not surprisingly, you went after the first topic even though it supports her argument less. Deal with the entire argument or admit that you don't have a valid one and move on. |
I addressed hers already.
1) Priests DO NOT have more access to boys. There's roughly equal access. There are more boys, but if there are two boys and one girl in the room, he has equal access.
2) Many homosexuals lead heterosexual lives as well. The fact that a "heterosexual" molests a boy means that he is satisfying his homosexual desires. |
Wrong...on both accounts
1) The number of males and females makes an obvious difference in the amount of access. Additionally, time spent with the children and time spent alone are obvious factors as well. For example, if there were 100 girls and 1 boy in the church, the initial conclusion would be that the priest has more access to girls. However, if the priest spent most of his time with the boy and was only ever alone with the boy, then the priest would have more access to the boy. Surely even you can see this. To carry that one step further, how much time do you think a priest is alone with those few girls that are a part of the church?
2) You continue to mistake **** desires with control issues. **** offenders (pedophiles or rapists) typically satisfy control and power issues through their offenses, not **** urges. It's not about ****, it's about power. I believe Shan pointed this out and you ignored it. In fact, you're still ignoring it and trying to draw incorrect conclusions based on a faulty cause/effect relationship. |
so why dont they have **** with girls if they are hetero? You really havent proved they have more access to boys, you just kinda hint at it with no proof. And its not always about power, sometimes they are just sick f***s.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 23:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
Tolanin, honestly, I have no information to show you that priests have more access other than my experiences with the way churches operate. In every church I've ever been to, priests have more opportunity with the boys than with the girls. I know it would help the argument if I could post something better than that but I highly doubt there have been any studies regarding the amount of time priests spend alone with boys or girls.
As for the power portion of the argument, your argument doesn't disprove what I said. If someone is a 'sick f**k', they are just that, sick. Being sick does not make one a homosexual. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that point. I don't buy the argument that a sick man who chooses to molest young boys is gay. If you choose to, that's certainly your choice.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 23:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nuldaan wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: | | Phoenix, the point is that there are many more boys than girls, not whether they were allowed or not. Stick to the topic. Shan argued that access is what causes more boys to be taken advantage of, as opposed to homosexuality as you argue. You haven't and probably won't address that other than to draw some strange relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. Good luck with that one. |
There are more boys than girls, but not many more girls. Not even a 4 to 1 ratio. And priests certainly have just as much access to girls, even if they are fewer in number. Only a homosexual would actively seek the boys over the girls. |
Phoenix, try to read the entire argument. Not just mine, but Shan's, which the one I was referring to.
She has two main points. Priests have more access to boys (you already acknowledge this). And most pedophiles lead normal heterosexual lives when they aren't out molesting young children. (You've ignored this one).
Not surprisingly, you went after the first topic even though it supports her argument less. Deal with the entire argument or admit that you don't have a valid one and move on. |
I addressed hers already.
1) Priests DO NOT have more access to boys. There's roughly equal access. There are more boys, but if there are two boys and one girl in the room, he has equal access.
2) Many homosexuals lead heterosexual lives as well. The fact that a "heterosexual" molests a boy means that he is satisfying his homosexual desires. |
Wrong...on both accounts
1) The number of males and females makes an obvious difference in the amount of access. Additionally, time spent with the children and time spent alone are obvious factors as well. For example, if there were 100 girls and 1 boy in the church, the initial conclusion would be that the priest has more access to girls. However, if the priest spent most of his time with the boy and was only ever alone with the boy, then the priest would have more access to the boy. Surely even you can see this. To carry that one step further, how much time do you think a priest is alone with those few girls that are a part of the church?
2) You continue to mistake **** desires with control issues. **** offenders (pedophiles or rapists) typically satisfy control and power issues through their offenses, not **** urges. It's not about ****, it's about power. I believe Shan pointed this out and you ignored it. In fact, you're still ignoring it and trying to draw incorrect conclusions based on a faulty cause/effect relationship. |
The first assumption is wrong. The ratio is nowhere near 100 to 1. It's more like 3 to 2. So access is approximately equal.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 23:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
"I'm not gay, I'm just experimenting!"
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 23:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
Give me a break, Phoenix. I said, for example. I was giving you an example to illustrate a point. It wasn't in any way intended to be a representation of reality.
I don't know why I bothered responding to you in the first place. I doubt you believe most of what you post and this debate is just going around in circles now. I haven't stated anything new in the past few posts and neither have you.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 23:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nuldaan wrote: | Give me a break, Phoenix. I said, for example. I was giving you an example to illustrate a point. It wasn't in any way intended to be a representation of reality.
I don't know why I bothered responding to you in the first place. I doubt you believe most of what you post and this debate is just going around in circles now. I haven't stated anything new in the past few posts and neither have you. |
Only by bringing your example to extremes does it hold water. And these extremes do not exist in the real world.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 03/01/04 - 23:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nuldaan wrote: | Give me a break, Phoenix. I said, for example. I was giving you an example to illustrate a point. It wasn't in any way intended to be a representation of reality.
I don't know why I bothered responding to you in the first place. I doubt you believe most of what you post and this debate is just going around in circles now. I haven't stated anything new in the past few posts and neither have you. |
i dont doubt at all that he believes what he is saying, it would be almost impossible to see things so clearly and still not understand.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
