Crime Mother of 9 shot and killed for selling pride flags.

[kflo]

My wording was inaccurate? Point out the flaw in my wording then

wtf is wrong with you?

i gave you more accurate language. deal with it. if you think my language is LESS accurate you are free to explain why.

stop being a coward - let me ask you (again) - what's your interest in trying to lump pedophiles with teleiophiles, when it's been explained to you they are mutually exclusive groups and homosexual pedophile has much more in common with the heterosexual pedophile than any teleiophile? why NOT be more specific and separate the 2?

 

[shockaholic12]

No one would ever deny the cover ups but the point you are making past that nonsense. You’re implying, well not implying, implicitly stating that parishioners have been part of these cover ups. If all these parishioners knew, as you clearly claim then what would be the point of the church officials covering it up? Why would they be moving the priests around? You’re making out that parishioners where bringing their kids to be molested.

I never implicitly stated parishioners have been part of these cover ups, though many have taken pay outs or advice from church leaders to not report the crimes so some obviously are.

But they are all aware of the pattern of behavior. They cover up it because the legal and financial repercussions. If a community is infamous for covering up child rapes, you shouldn't send them your kids.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Most likely true? you tried to ignore all the other religions and forms of Christianity behaving like this while also ignoring the whole part about the community leaders paying off families and transferring rapists to protect them. Do you have examples of schools doing this often?

not ignoring, point is all religions taken together, all their "priests" have waay less access to kids than schools and teachers, that have all the access. in the entire europe, every kid sees teachers every school day, they only see priests very very rarely. it's the same for most of the rest of the world.
so it's reasonable to suspect the most cases of abuse come from the community most represented in the "access to kids" category, which is undoubtedly teachers. hell, all the "priests" category is probably not even second place, it's probably third after doctors.
so it's probably teachers, doctors and maybe on third place all sorts of priest from all sorts of religions.

 

[shockaholic12]

No proof and more baseless claims. Move along, kid. You have the argumentative skills of a 10-year old

Let's get this straight. You are under the assumption the church doesn't have a history of thousands of sexual abuses towards children and concerted efforts to hide these crimes? This shit is news to you? I just linked an article of this behavior going on for centuries.

Are you concussed? This is a very dumb line of thinking even for you.

 

[shockaholic12]

not ignoring, point is all religions taken together, all their "priests" have waay less access to kids than schools and teachers, that have all the access. in the entire europe, every kid sees teachers every school day, they only see priests very very rarely. it's the same for most of the rest of the world.
so it's reasonable to suspect the most cases of abuse come from the community most represented in the "access to kids" category, which is undoubtedly teachers. hell, all the "priests" category is probably not even second place, it's probably third after doctors.
so it's probably teachers, doctors and maybe on third place all sorts of priest from all sorts of religions.

Lol, so you're just guessing?

access to kids in what kind of setting? If my access to kids as a history teacher is them in large group settings in my classroom for 45 minutes compared to priests taking alter boys in the back of the church for one on one time, the opportunity to take advantage of them is totally different.

And again, obviously the institution making concerted efforts to protect the rapists here makes a difference in what danger they pose. One priest can abuse countless kids if the institution has helped him along the way, which churches have constantly done.

 

[Horse Style]

wtf is wrong with you?

i gave you more accurate language. deal with it. if you think my language is LESS accurate you are free to explain why.

stop being a coward - let me ask you (again) - what's your interest in trying to lump pedophiles with teleiophiles, when it's been explained to you they are mutually exclusive groups and homosexual pedophile has much more in common with the heterosexual pedophile than any teleiophile? why NOT be more specific and separate the 2?

Me: Can you find a flaw in my definition?
You: No, but I'm gonna give me own definition (when no one asked) and demand you find a flaw

So you were scared to "play my game" and ran away from accepting or finding a flaw and trying to reform the focus. And you top it off with the epitome of projection with the "coward" comment.

As expected, you don't want to have a serious discussion, just to defend child sexualization when it pops up in the LGBT+ community.

 

[Horse Style]

Let's get this straight. You are under the assumption the church doesn't have a history of thousands of sexual abuses towards children and concerted efforts to hide these crimes? This shit is news to you? I just linked an article of this behavior going on for centuries.

Are you concussed? This is a very dumb line of thinking even for you.

More made-up nonsense that I never said or even implied instead of providing proof. You continue to be a joke

 

[ICHEERTHEBULL]

I never implicitly stated parishioners have been part of these cover ups, though many have taken pay outs or advice from church leaders to not report the crimes so some obviously are.

But they are all aware of the pattern of behavior. They cover up it because the legal and financial repercussions. If a community is infamous for covering up child rapes, you shouldn't send them your kids.

“I never said they have been part of cover ups” “some got paid off and they all knew” you don’t see the contradiction between the two?

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Lol, so you're just guessing?

access to kids in what kind of setting? If my access to kids as a history teacher is them in large group settings in my classroom for 45 minutes compared to priests taking alter boys in the back of the church for one on one time, the opportunity to take advantage of them is totally different.

And again, obviously the institution making concerted efforts to protect the rapists here makes a difference in what danger they pose. One priest can abuse countless kids if the institution has helped him along the way, which churches have constantly done.

everybody's guessing. that's how this works - you make inferences based on the hypothesis you're trying to build, in this case the hypothesis being that access to kids is what draws most abusers to specializations that permit it. and given the vastly superior number of teachers compared to any kind of priest, it is reasonable to assume the number of abusers is higher in teachers than in priests. and just like your case with the kid being asked to go to the back of the church, a kid can be asked by the teacher to wait after classes for a one on one talk, where the abuse happens.
which is precisely why i stand by my assertion that the numbers are probably :
1. teachers,
2. doctors
3. priests.

this not to mention the biggest source of abuse by far, which is inside their own family, by members of their family - mothers, sisters, brothers, fathers, cousins, grandparents, etc.

 

[shockaholic12]

More made-up nonsense that I never said or even implied instead of providing proof. You continue to be a joke

So you agree the church has a history of thousands of sexual abuses towards children and concerted efforts to hide these crimes? Cool. And you think this is a less dangerous setting for kids than one where men dance in make up? You're fucked up

 

[kflo]

Me: Can you find a flaw in my definition?
You: No, but I'm gonna give me own definition (when no one asked) and demand you find a flaw

So you were scared to "play my game" and ran away from accepting or finding a flaw and trying to reform the focus. And you top it off with the epitome of projection with the "coward" comment.

As expected, you don't want to have a serious discussion, just to defend child sexualization when it pops up in the LGBT+ community.

ok, so you're either a retard or a coward or both. i'm guessing both.

Heterosexual teleiophile = Person attracted to opposite sex who is also attracted to adults

NO - the are not attracted to opposite sex who is also attracted to adults. they are attracted to adults of the opposite sex. there is no also.....

Homosexual teleiophile

= Person attracted to the same sex who is also attracted to adults

NO - the are not attracted to same sex who is also attracted to adults. they are attracted to adults of the same sex. there is no also.....

 

[shockaholic12]

“I never said they have been part of cover ups” “some got paid off and they all knew” you don’t see the contradiction between the two?

have some been paid off? yes
has the entire country known about the sex abuse issues of the church for decades? yes

You're not even arguing that I'm not right about both these things, so I'm not sure what is upsetting you here.

You said I stated the parishioners were in on the cover-ups and stated the church wouldn't need to cover up these crimes if the church-goers were in on it too. I corrected you and said some parishioners were in on it (which is was right about) but the reason the church is covering it up is to protect themselves financially and legally, as they clearly don't have an issue bringing in the parishioner family to join the cover up sometimes. I also said everyone knows the church has done this, the church itself has had to publicly admit it. What are you missing here?

 

[Horse Style]

ok, so you're either a retard or a coward or both. i'm guessing both.

NO - the are not attracted to opposite sex who is also attracted to adults. they are attracted to adults of the opposite sex. there is no also.....

NO - the are not attracted to same sex who is also attracted to adults. they are attracted to adults of the same sex. there is no also.....

The "also" is what combines the two words "homosexual" and "teleiophile" into the term "homosexual teleiophile", but that's not important.

With your definition, these terms are correct:

Heterosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the opposite sex
Homosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the same sex

Still following or are you confused?

 

[shockaholic12]

everybody's guessing. that's how this works - you make inferences based on the hypothesis you're trying to build, in this case the hypothesis being that access to kids is what draws most abusers to specializations that permit it. and given the vastly superior number of teachers compared to any kind of priest, it is reasonable to assume the number of abusers is higher in teachers than in priests.

That is not the hypothesis being built.

The correct hypothesis is "the churches access to kids along with it's history abusing them and concerted efforts of the leaders to cover up child abuse makes church a more dangerous setting for kids than drag reading hour or shows, where there is no history of sexual abuse or concerted efforts of the leaders to cover up child abuse"

 

[Horse Style]

So you agree the church has a history of thousands of sexual abuses towards children and concerted efforts to hide these crimes? Cool. And you think this is a less dangerous setting for kids than one where men dance in make up? You're fucked up

Yea, all they have to do is not leave their kids alone with church officials. Easy fix since the priests are stripping and twerking during service.

And that's clearly a "no" on you having proof that the broader church community is okay with the sex crimes.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

That is not the hypothesis being built.

The correct hypothesis is "the churches access to kids along with it's history abusing them and concerted efforts of the leaders to cover up child abuse makes church a more dangerous setting for kids than drag reading hour or shows, where there is no history of sexual abuse or concerted efforts of the leaders to cover up child abuse"

it's certainly not my hypothesis.
but if that's yours, fine.

 

[PhitePhan]

So you agree the church has a history of thousands of sexual abuses towards children and concerted efforts to hide these crimes? Cool. And you think this is a less dangerous setting for kids than one where men dance in make up? You're fucked up

You really can’t see the difference between an organization (Catholic Church) covering up abuse because it’s frowned upon by the vast majority of members, versus introducing children to sexual orientations and trans story time, which is promoted openly by proponents?

These are two completely different issues, and all you’re doing is trying to conflate and “whatabout” to distract the topic at hand.

I’m guessing you see nothing wrong with kids being introduced to lgbt in the classroom and trans story hour etc… care to tell us why you think kids should be taught about confusing sexual topics?

 

[kflo]

The "also" is what combines the two words "homosexual" and "teleiophile" into the term "homosexual teleiophile", but that's not important.

With your definition, these terms are correct:

Heterosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the opposite sex
Homosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the same sex

Still following or are you confused?

nah. not playing. i played your dumb game, and corrected you.

stop being a coward - let me ask you (again) - what's your interest in trying to lump pedophiles with teleiophiles, when it's been explained to you they are mutually exclusive groups and homosexual pedophile has much more in common with the heterosexual pedophile than any teleiophile? why NOT be more specific and separate the 2?

 

[Horse Style]

nah. not playing. i played your dumb game, and corrected you.

stop being a coward - let me ask you (again) - what's your interest in trying to lump pedophiles with teleiophiles, when it's been explained to you they are mutually exclusive groups and homosexual pedophile has much more in common with the heterosexual pedophile than any teleiophile? why NOT be more specific and separate the 2?

I even used your wording for the "heterosexual ephebophile" and "homosexual ephebophile" terms and you cower away from the terms to deflect back to p*d*philes.

It's hilarious you calling people "cowards" when you're scared to discuss the meaning of terms. You creeps are always cowards when confronted

 

[44nutman]

Yea, all they have to do is not leave their kids alone with church officials. Easy fix since the priests are stripping and twerking during service.

And that's clearly a "no" on you having proof that the broader church community is okay with the sex crimes.

I think if you cant leave your children alone with a leader of an institution, it might be best to avoid that institution entirely.