Child rape apologia. A brutal accusation to make.

[guillaumeb]

I posted an article, and the following 3 edited accusations were made that the article is actually a form of child rape apologia.

Major Nikon (30,905 posts)
7. Kinda fucked up to suggest religion has no role to play

Child rape apologia has no place here. Not anywhere else for that matter.

Response to guillaumeb (Reply #98)
Thu Jan 17, 2019, 11:31 AM
Major Nikon (30,905 posts)
120. Another article from the exact same RCC sponsored child rape apologist

So it looks like you are at least 2 for 2 in cheering on child rape apologists, Gil. Good job.

Response to guillaumeb (Reply #122)
Thu Jan 17, 2019, 12:19 PM
Major Nikon (30,905 posts)
124. Yeah, my tactic is to call out child rape apologia when I see it

While yours is to regurgitate and defend it.

And yes, Gil. We do need more at least so long as the child rape apologists continue to rush to the defense of child rapists and their enablers. Very telling you'd think otherwise.

All of the above accusations from this post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218304980

Now, from the actual article:

Because of the failure of Catholic bishops in the past to report abusive priests to authorities, states are now also including Catholic clergy as mandatory reporters.

Most bishops do not oppose making Catholic clergymen mandatory reporters except when it comes to what a priest hears in the sacrament of confession.

This confidentiality of confession was respected by Western nations for centuries, considering it on a par with client-attorney confidentiality. Note that no state is proposing that lawyers be mandatory reporters of what they learn about sexual abuse from their clients.

Because laws vary from state to state, we need to have a national conversation over disclosure laws with input from victims, legal scholars and those covered.

And while everyone would agree that the abuse of a child should be reported, what if the information comes from an adult survivor who does not want the crime reported?

Priests, like psychologists and psychiatrists, should be covered by mandatory reporting rules with an exemption for confession, but there needs to be a serious discussion of exactly what should be covered. In these discussions the victims should have a prominent role.

So we have, in order:

A recognition that the RCC has failed in not reporting, and

most Bishops support mandatory reporting, with a proviso, and


the abuse of a child should be reported, and


Priests should be covered, again with a proviso for confession.

How anyone can reasonably infer that the author is a rape apologist is beyond me. This is an open acknowlegdement of the problem and a call for changes in the law to address the problem.

And in my view, such accusations of rape apology reflect an interest in shutting down dialogue, not encouraging it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

1. 1) Post flamebait.

2) Get flamed.
3) Cry about it.
4) Profit?

[guillaumeb]

2. 3 unfounded accusations.

And this is called dialogue?


I asked numerous times for proof, and asked 2 posters for proof. So far, no proof.

But if you wish, feel free to point out the proof of the accusation of apologia,

[trotsky]

3. I have asked you the same question at least 2 dozen times. So far, no answer.

You get what you give, gil.

Apparently the rules you think others must follow, you don't think apply to you.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304549

[guillaumeb]

6. Expected evasion.

Understood.

Meanwhile, these clips, and the article, stand as a convincing refutation of the accusations.

[trotsky]

12. Thank you for admitting your lack of answering is expected evasion.

I suspected as much.

I'd be ashamed of your opinion too.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. Oh, ok. Let me found them.

1) Post flamebait - evidenced by the flamebait you posted.
2) Get flamed -
3) Cry about it - evidenced by this thread.
4) Profit? - Evidenced by the complete lack of anything you will gain from this.

[guillaumeb]

10. What?

If you have read the post, you saw the 3 accusations.

And the clips that refute the accusations.


And this is what some few, some very few, consider to be dialogue and debate.

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. You feel the things you post here are in the interest of dialogue and debate?

Don't patronize me.

[guillaumeb]

25. And you accuse me.

So there is that.

[Act_of_Reparation]

30. Your point being?

[trotsky]

22. What the hell do YOU consider to be dialog and debate, gil?

Accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being members of a choir who are directed by someone else?

Claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is mindlessly following a fictional "11th commandment" that requires them to speak negatively about religion?

Are those examples of the kind of dialog and debate you want, gil?

Oh wait, I forgot. You don't think you should have to follow the rules you demand others do.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304549

[niyad]

5. Knowing this DU'er as I do, flamebaiting and crying are NOT on the agenda.

[trotsky]

7. He supports exemptions for clergy from mandatory reporting laws.

A lot of DUers are disappointed by that. A lot of us think that protecting children is more important than protecting religious dogma.

[guillaumeb]

11. Laughable.

Truly laughable.

[trotsky]

16. Yes indeed, your evasion is.

I'm glad you recognize that.

[guillaumeb]

17. Have you read #14 yet?

Ad if you have, what is your response?

[trotsky]

19. Read and answered.

Keep humiliating yourself. I have truly enjoyed seeing you implode today.

[guillaumeb]

14. And there is this reply, from the original thread, that you ignored or missed:

Response to Eko (Reply #51)
Wed Jan 16, 2019, 07:38 PM
guillaumeb (30,112 posts)
53. No, there should be no exemption for clergy. eom


Je crois, donc je suis.

So again, what was your assertion on my position?

[trotsky]

18. You are carefully trying to skirt the question.

You support clergy being subjected to mandatory reporting laws, but you specifically want to exclude them from having to report information they receive in confessional.

Am I wrong?

[guillaumeb]

23. Allow me to make this very clear:

The author has an opinion that there should be an exception for the Confessional, similar to that granted to attorneys for privileged conversation.

But the author also says that there must be change.

And, most importantly, your accusation about me, and your constant questions, had been answered yesterday by me.

Now, as to the exception for the Confessional, I am unsure. Both positions have support.

[trotsky]

26. YOU ARE UNSURE????

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

Faced with the choice of having one more possible way to get child predators off the street and prevent further victims, you're NOT FUCKING SURE if that's worth holding a cleric to the same standards as any other mandated reporter.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST INDEED.

Thank you, at long last, for answering the question and exposing your position for all to see.

[guillaumeb]

32. Attorneys are not subject to the requirement.

Perhaps you missed that part.

And, most abuse happens in the home, so to be consistent, everyone should be a mandated reporter.

[trotsky]

35. Whataboutism.

Attorney-client privilege is a wholly separate issue AND there ARE items for which it does not apply.

If a client told their attorney that they were sexually tempted by a child, and they were thinking about acting on that, a lawyer would HAVE TO report it.

If it's someone in the confession booth who says the SAME EXACT thing, the priest does NOT have to report it.

[guillaumeb]

38. Avoid reality if you wish.

Everyone should be a mandated reporter,

unless you support a familial exception?

Do you?

[trotsky]

40. Avoid reality? I just explained reality to you.

And you're again trying to use whataboutism to avoid the subject.

As I've told you literally dozens of times, this is the RELIGION forum. RELIGIOUS topics are to be discussed. You want to talk about why family members are exempt from reporting laws? Start a thread in GD or elsewhere.

For the record, many countries DO include family members as mandated reporters.

And I *will* answer your question - but will not answer any follow ups, because they are NOT on-topic for this forum: I do NOT support a familial exception. If ANYONE hears about the potential abuse of a child, they should report it, like they should report ANY serious crime.

[guillaumeb]

42. No, you explained what your preferred narrative is.

And no one can address the 3 accusations.

[trotsky]

50. Nope, reality. And no one is because no one gives a shit about your diversion.

You don't want to talk about the topic OF YOUR OWN THREAD, and so you launched a new thread specifically whining about how someone else responded to you.

P.S. That's against this group's rules, BTW. Not that playing by rules ever mattered to you.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304549

[Major Nikon]

106. "everyone should be a mandated reporter"

If one simply ignores your trademarked Whataboutism® you are still left with an utterly ridiculous notion that the RCC is no different from a household and family.

Had you bothered to read the opinions of virtually any child welfare organization instead of consulting a paid RCC child rape apologist on the subject you might know these things.

[guillaumeb]

126. Another silly accusation.

But you have that right.

[Major Nikon]

80. Amazing, isn't it?

Good thing there’s no child rape apologia going on in here. That would be bad.

[trotsky]

100. WHAT SAY YOU ABOUT THE THREE ACCUSATIONS?

'TIS TRUE, ALL KNOWETH IT BE THE ACTUAL CRIME HERE.

[Major Nikon]

105. Glad you asked

Had Gil bothered to check the source of the article, he might have realized this was coming from a RCC priest that has a vested interest in not holding the RCC responsible for child rape. So right away a red flag should have gone up. Then you realize the argument is that the venerated rituals of the RCC should be able to trump the interests of children in not being raped. In other words, child rape apologia. A bit of further investigation on Gil's source reveals another article he regurgitated where the same priest claims the RCC is really doing a great job in addressing its child rape problem, but their real problem is they just haven't gotten that information to the public. So yeah, as you would expect from seeking the opinion from the RCC about how they are doing with their child molestation problem, the answer is we are doing fine, just leave us alone.

Once Gil was told what the actual apologia was and he was pressed multiple times on whether or not he agreed with an opinion that he obviously felt strongly enough about to regurgitate. His answer is he just doesn't know, which allows him to ride the fence between agreeing with an obvious child rape apologist and agreeing with the Pennsylvania grand jury, child welfare experts, numerous state legislatures, and a pissed off public opinion all of which are convinced that the RCC has utterly failed its responsibility to protect children from being molested and it's well past the time to take action.

So perhaps like pope Frank, Gil is evolving on this issue. Given another decade or so he'll probably be on-board with the idea that the RCC should be legally required to tell someone when they know about a child being raped. I won't hold my breath on that.

[trotsky]

108. I don't think you understand, you see.

Gil gave the headline a cursory read, and he agreed with it, and so he posted it without reading and understanding the whole thing.

You know, like he's done before.

And before that.

And before that.

And before that.

Since he can't just admit error to the horrible evil atheists who ask questions (gasp!), he keeps doubling down, and we get to post trainwreck gifs. He's really the gift that keeps on giving.

[Major Nikon]

109. The headline should have given it away

So while intellectual laziness is the usual excuse, in this case you don't even have that.

If someone isn't smart enough to recognize it's not a good idea to regurgitate why the RCC thinks the RCC shouldn't have to comply with child rape prevention laws, then there's really no hope for them.

[trotsky]

110. As he's admitted, he was raised Catholic.

The reflex to defend that institution is very strong, even in some of those who have moved on in their beliefs. Recall that he also consistently responds to articles about abuse in the RCC with cries of there being abusers outside the church too. So I think he read the headline, thought it was a good thing defending a Catholic practice in the face of increasing pressure to fight abuse, and posted it.

But ultimately, yeah, when one thinks defending a religious teaching is more important than protecting children (or even can't decide), I gotta suspect their moral compass isn't functioning well.

[Major Nikon]

113. You start to notice a pattern of behavior

Then they slip up and go one step too far and have to walk it back, but still continue to defend the indefensible.

It's not as if this is the first time someone has posted RCC child rape apologia in the religion group. As deplorable as that shit was 10 years ago it's an order of magnitude worse today. Nobody needs to hear the RCC's side of this. We already know they are going to continue to rape children and cover it up unless society puts a stop to it.

[marylandblue]

111. The article headline is misleading

Ostensibly, it could be about mandatory reporting for clergy being insufficient and additional controls needed. Instead it's a defense of the sanctity of confession. Confession is not even mentioned in the title. So I could see Gil just reading the title and missing the main point.

[Major Nikon]

112. Not sure how you get there

"Why making clergy mandatory reporters won't solve the Catholic abuse crisis".

Just a cursory reading tells you it's an attack on one legal strategy to reel in the RCC's child rape epidemic, which is exactly what it is from a RCC priest no less.

[marylandblue]

114. Because it's true it won't "solve" the crisis

It's only one little piece at best. A more accurate title would have been, "Why the Sacrament of Confession Should be Exempt from Mandatory Reporting." But that would have given the whole game away up front.

[Major Nikon]

115. Which makes it obvious strawman rhetoric

It's not as if this is a dog whistle. It's more like a bullhorn.

You are correct in that this is one little piece, but it's also part of a much bigger strategy of watering down any attempts at holding the RCC responsible for their criminality and preventing it from continuing.

The same author posted a piece claiming the RCC was doing a great job of addressing it's child rape problem and just needs to do a better one in the PR department. So it really shouldn't come as any surprise this same RCC priest is arguing against a law the RCC is already refusing to comply with to the detriment of children.

[marylandblue]

116. Yes, well, I am just talking about the headline

Without noting the author or the content. Some people have a habit of doing that.

But I agree that the author is just trying to protect the RCC from taking responsibility for its actions.

[Major Nikon]

117. As am I when I say it's obvious strawman rhetoric

Nobody is saying only one thing is going to solve the RCC's epidemic of child rape. You don't have to read the article to know that much.

[marylandblue]

118. Obvious to you. Not obvious to me until I read the article.

Perhaps you are too suspicious or I am too naive. In this case you were right.

[Lordquinton]

121. Don't forget

This one.

Sometimes the articles completely undermine any point he was trying to make, but he just ignores that detail and continues on.

[trotsky]

123. LOL oh yeah, that one too.

I only grabbed the first few I came across - there are so many, it's easy to find them.

[Lordquinton]

129. It's true, it's damn true

I like highlighting that one because it comes the closest to an attempt to show his god might exist, and the "proof" he found absolutely shuts his argument down. And the comments that follow show his utter refusal to actually read words that are posted in front of him. He still goes back to parallel universes where proof might be found, ignoring the fact that his own article said, in no uncertain terms, that it couldn't happen.

[Major Nikon]

79. The RCC is the one supporting the position that makes it easier to rape children

And you are parroting out their deplorable bullshit.

Good to know you are on the fence about whether or not its a good idea for those that know about child rape to tell the police.

[guillaumeb]

84. Your insight is noted.

As is your refusal to substantiate claims.

[Major Nikon]

86. Explain again how you are unsure that child rape prevention laws are a good idea

[guillaumeb]

87. Sorry to avoid your diversion.

Address and substantiate your own claims, or admit that you cannot.

I can guess which you will choose.

[Major Nikon]

89. ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=305343

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. Then explain the flamebaiting and crying.

Is he having a bad day?

[niyad]

9. nice try.

[trotsky]

13. Do you think clergy should be exempted from mandatory reporting laws...

when it comes to information they learn in confessional?

[guillaumeb]

15. See #14

[trotsky]

20. Read and responded to.

Now you need to respond to me.

Let's have a dialog, gil.

Answer my question, at long fucking last.

[Voltaire2]

73. Er what? They are sop.

[MineralMan]

24. You forgot to emphasize this phrase:

with an exemption for confession,

And there's the crux of the matter. This writer is writing an apologia for the practice of not reporting child abuse that is revealed in the confessional. Your point is not made.

However, you have made it clear that you did not like some of other people's comments. We knew that already, Guy. You said so in other threads. However, starting a new thread is a common practice, which you have followed.

Still, the article you linked to does contain an apologia for covering up child sexual abuse when it is revealed in the confessional. Priests are not attorneys, or at least most of them are not. The thing is that some of us do not agree in the sanctity of the confessional in any way, when it comes to confessions of crimes that harm others. I have never agreed with that, and believe it should not exist.

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. Plus, it is 2019.

And there aren't many left who have the saintlike patience to listen to a Catholic priest make the case for the circumstances under which he should not be required to report child abuse.

[guillaumeb]

28. No, you misunderstand the term "apologia for child rape".

If you did understand, your response simply would not have happened.

The phrase "apologia for child rape", and variants, appeared from responders here. And those unfounded accusations are addressed here.


So if you wish to write a piece attacking the author's motives, or what you feel they are, feel free.

[MineralMan]

31. Oh dear. No, Guy, I do not misunderstand the term.

Not in any way. My mind is quite clear about the meanings of words.

[guillaumeb]

34. You might clearly feel that you are correct here,

but that might be due to cognitive bias.


3 claims were made, and all 3 were refuted by ana ctual reading of the actual article.

[MineralMan]

37. You posted the article, with your approbation.

You did not contradict what the author at the link said, and he clearly exempted information from the confessional. Let me ask you this question:

If someone told you in confidence that he had sexually molested a child, what would you do? It's a simple question, really. You are a human being. Priests are human beings. What would a sane, caring human being do in that circumstance?

Now, I don't expect you to answer in any sort of straightforward way, but here's your opportunity to clarify.

[guillaumeb]

43. You are incorrect in your assertion that this is apologetics.

And you refuse to admit that.

[trotsky]

58. Apologetics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense" ) is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.

The author was putting forth a defense of the religious doctrine of the confessional as it pertains to being excluded from the reporting of child rape.

Child rape apologia is certainly a fair way of putting that.

[guillaumeb]

59. No, it is not. Not even close to correct.

The author specifically and repeatedly stated that child abuse is an evil. So the claim that the article is "child rape apologetics" is completely untrue, and shows a misunderstanding of the term and the article.

[trotsky]

61. You are free to disagree.

You aren't the definer, though.

[guillaumeb]

62. And you are free to say that black is white,

but as I already pointed out, what you claim to see is simply not found in the actual article.

And not one of the many claimants can point to one instance where the author excuses the problem. He simply points out that the solution may not be the solution.

[Major Nikon]

95. "solution may not be the solution"

[trotsky]

101. You don't get to define things for others.

That's your rule. I pointed out how, given the definition of apologia, the claim fits.

You don't like that, and I'm glad you don't, because it means that maybe, just maybe, there is a decent person inside you somewhere and you do recognize the horrid shit you believe and the terrible way you treat others.

[guillaumeb]

124. You demand the right to define black as white, and up as down.

But you cannot demand that such claims be taken as actual debate.

[trotsky]

125. Nope, you're trying to do the defining here.

And you're failing, as usual.

[guillaumeb]

127. And you are arguing that you are "the definer".

Good luck in that battle with the actual meaning of words.

[trotsky]

128. You have convinced yourself.

That's all you really need to do.

Have you decided yet if you're OK with priests protecting child rapists? Or are you still on the fence?

[guillaumeb]

64. Thank you for agreeing with me,

and admitting that you were incorrect.

Now, we have the instance where you cite something, and then insist that the "something" means something else.

[trotsky]

102. Oh dear.

You appear to be a little confused again.

[Major Nikon]

96. I thought he was the "decider"

At any rate Gil simultaneously decided you are saying black is white and you agree with him, so if you can figure out how that works, let me know.

He also admitted the RCC is saying “the solution may not be the solution”.

Sometimes you just have to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

[Major Nikon]

98. Its untrue because you misquoted me

The bit of fun trotsky was having with you is that you’re obviously confused about the significant literal difference between apologia and apologetics.

What makes it all the more hilarious is you are the one who told me to google the word and then you proceeded to fuck it up completely.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=305404

[trotsky]

103. BWAH HA HA HA

[guillaumeb]

122. Laughable.

You made 3 accusations. Now, you are trying to qualify the failed accusations.

[Major Nikon]

130. The only qualification I made was your fuckup trying to quote me

You can either correct your fuckup on your misquote or at least admit it or not, but please don’t project your fuckups on me.

[guillaumeb]

131. This would earn you a failed grade in any level debate class.

Now, you are reduced to fighting your own words.

[Major Nikon]

132. You just said "I stuck my dick in a light socket". Those are your words.

I put quotes around it so it must be true, and if you claim you didn’t say that you are reduced to fighting your own words.

[guillaumeb]

133. Which is about on the level of your 3 accusations.

Well done.

[Major Nikon]

134. So why did you repeatedly apologize for posting RCC rape apologia?

Are you now taking that back?

Why are you fighting your own words?

[guillaumeb]

135. Even worse.

Award yourself a medal for something.

[Major Nikon]

136. Why would I take credit for your idea?

I didn’t even suggest you put your dick in a light socket.

[MineralMan]

137. Which socket type?

There are so many, viz:

[Voltaire2]

138. No offense but those are bulbs not sockets

Although one could infer the socket from the bulb.

[MineralMan]

139. Good point, but before one can specify the socket, one must know what bulb

will be used. So, I showed the bulb bases to assist with the selection. After all, if you needed a replacement socket, you would take the bulb, if not a standard medium-base bulb, to the hardware store so you could make sure you got the right socket. If you have a dim or non-functioning bulb, too, you might take it in with you, as well, if the base were not a common one.

However, picking nits is a justifiable thing in this Group. There are many, many nits to be picked here, to be sure.

[Major Nikon]

140. Did you just assume gender?

[MineralMan]

142. I believe there was a reference to a "dick" in a light socket above.

Now, I would not put a dick in a light socket, but if one were considering doing that...

[Major Nikon]

143. Those were his words, not mine

For all I know he was talking about a prosthesis. I'll let him be the decider of that.

[MineralMan]

145. Please forgive me if I have erred in the attribution of

that comment. Still, electrical safety is always a concern of mine.

[marylandblue]

149. Well I don't suggest any one try it, but if you were interested

Wouldn't it make more sense to bring your dick to the hardware store rather than a bunch of bulbs?

First, your dick is already with you, second, it's easier to get a good fit by directly comparing your dick to the socket, and third the store workers are pretty handy so they may have experience in the procedure in case you need help.

[MineralMan]

150. It's a metaphor, see.

A metaphor.

It's all a metaphor for something, I am told.

[marylandblue]

151. Well some men have been sticking their dicks in strange objects for thousands of years

So are you now saying they never actually did it but were really looking for the spark that started the universe?

[MineralMan]

152. And Billly-Bob said, "Let there be light," and flipped the switch.

The resulting flash is still being seen today. Billy-Bob, on the other hand, was never seen again.

[Voltaire2]

141. Oh so you are a bulb determines the socket sort of person?

Feh. I’m guessing your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries. This has gone far enough. I will be starting an outrage op here to warn the world of your perfidy.

[MineralMan]

144. I reject your criticism on the following grounds:

If one were to attempt for force a mogul screw-base bulb into a candelabra socket, damage could occur. By the same token, attempting to put a candelabra bulb in a medium-base socket would not result in any effective lighting.

It is very important to match the bulb to the correct socket to avoid danger or an improper fit. I am not an expert in "putting dicks in light sockets," of course, but the same principle would apply, I'd think.

I must complain in the strongest of terms about the casual nit-picking that often exists in this Group. I will be contacting the authorities if this practice continues, I assure you.

[Major Nikon]

146. Sometimes when you descend down the Rabbit of Caerbannog's hole...

You find many more tunnels than you ever imagined.

[MineralMan]

147. One would need a detailed map, I'd think,

in such circumstances. Or a very good GPS system. Keep me covered! I'm going in!

[Major Nikon]

148. GPS is useless underground

And some people couldn't find their ass with a flashlight and a roadmap. Not naming names, but you know.

[trotsky]

29. Gil has punted.

He's "unsure" whether he supports exempting the confessional from reporting laws.

UNSURE.

[MineralMan]

33. He's of two minds about it, then.

One wonders who the other mind belongs to...

I remember another DUer who often defended the sanctity of the confessional, but since he cannot defend himself here, I will not call him out.

[guillaumeb]

36. More ad hominem and vague accusations?

Devoted to dialogue.

[MineralMan]

39. Just analysis, Guy. Analysis.

You claim to be undecided about the sanctity of the confessional in such cases. I encourage you to think about it and come to some sort of conclusions. The priest in the article you quoted was quite clear in believing in that principle. What do you believe? It's a simple question. What would you do if someone revealed in a confidential way that he had sexually abused a child? Do tell.

[guillaumeb]

44. You seem unsure about that term as well.

The topic here, and it is in the actual headline, concerns 3 accusations made that the post referenced is a case of child rape apologia.

Now that, for those unfamiliar with the term, would mean that the referenced article attempted to defend the conduct of child rape.

Instead, the actual article talks of the difficulty of stopping child rape. And how one proposed solution might not, in fact, be a solution.

[MineralMan]

47. ..

[guillaumeb]

52. Yes, it is good to retreat from the unsupportable claim.

Better would be to admit it.

Really, this excuse for dialogue, consisting of multiple unprovable accusations, would earn a student a failing grade.

[Major Nikon]

94. ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304980

[Major Nikon]

99. So what kind of grade did you earn for calling multiple people here "intolerant", Gil?

What grade did you earn with your name calling “definer” sillyshit?

What grade did you earn all those times you posted sillyshit canned responses instead of engaging in dialog by answering relevant questions about your own OPs?

What kind of grade do you think your broad brush dehumanizing “choir” bullshit earned you?

What grade do you think you deserve by playing the victim with your 11th Commandment® nonsense ad nauseum?

The class is over, Gil, and you failed all your tests.

[trotsky]

104. Well, at this moment there are 2 DUers who have recommended his thread.

So we know his actions have garnered a fan club of at least 2 people who think he is doing a great. They would give him an "A" grade, I assume.

Given the massive number of people who have been attacked and insulted by him, I'm going to guess his GPA goes down a bit if you average in some other scores.

But you have to remember - the rules he applies to others never apply to him. Or, he gets a special dispensation to break them because everyone else deserves it. And, as you said, he's the decider. Judge people, dispenses eye for an eye justice. Just like Jesus taught.

[Major Nikon]

41. ...

[guillaumeb]

45. 3 train wrecks.

One for each of your unproven accusations.

[Major Nikon]

48. I'm sure you have faith in that

Nothing else seems to be helping.

[guillaumeb]

46. And there is more:

What are the statistics on girls and boys who are sexually abused?
Remember, statistics come from reported abuse, so we don't have accurate, objective numbers. But based on the reports we have, it's believed that 1 in 3 or 4 girls is sexually abused, and the general consensus is that 1 in 5 to 1 in 7 boys is sexually abused.
We believe as many as 50 to 60 million American adults were sexually abused in their childhood.

Some say as many as ninety percent of sexual abuse victims never tell.

About 300,000 children and youth are estimated to be at risk of exploitation.

Over 60% are abused within their own family by mothers, fathers, uncles, siblings, etc.

http://www.naasca.org/2012-Resources/010812-StaisticsOfChildAbuse.htm

[Major Nikon]

49. Yeah, whatabout that?

[guillaumeb]

53. What about your 3 claims?

[Major Nikon]

65. Still think it's a better idea to parrot out the RCC's side of this story

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218305413

[guillaumeb]

67. SO the 3 claims are unsupportable?

We agree on this.

[Major Nikon]

69. If you want to pretend I'm agreeing with the RCCs child rape apologia have at it

Kinda looks immature and desperate, but here we are.

[MineralMan]

51. This is the Religion Group, Guy.

Where is there a religious connection in your linked article? Focus.

[guillaumeb]

55. Theists are humans.

I thought that was quite obvious.

[MineralMan]

56. Nope. The Religion Group is for discussions of

Religious issues. GD is the place for your lInk. It has nothing to do with this thread at all. Focus.

[guillaumeb]

57. Focus on the term "child rape apologia".

Understand the term.

Understanding leads to real insight.

[MineralMan]

60. No. I'm focusing on religion and child sexual abuse.

Apologia is a religious term of art.

[guillaumeb]

63. Your focus is skewed.

There were 3 accusations made. All unsupportable.

[MineralMan]

74. Sez You...

Your whataboutism is showing, and its hem is all frayed.

[guillaumeb]

83. Your something is showing.

And has been.

[MineralMan]

75. LOL!

If wishes were fishes...

[Major Nikon]

81. Yeah, some are unsure about whether or not child rape prevention laws are a good idea

And they present the argument against them from the very organization that’s covering up the child raping.

I’m sure glad that’s not going on in here because that would be some rock hard child rape apologia right there.

[guillaumeb]

85. Focus. or continue with your meme.

I will bet on the continuation of the unproven claim. History supports that one.

[Major Nikon]

88. And you will lose and then welch on the bet

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304980

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218305413

[guillaumeb]

90. Laughable.

ON both counts.

[Major Nikon]

91. You are the only one laughing over child rape apologia

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304980

[guillaumeb]

92. Even more laughable.

Your arguments are failing.

Stay with the gifs.

[Major Nikon]

93. Sounds like you are the "decider"

So why not declare victory and move on, Gil?

You seem to have a bit of an issue letting this one go if you’re so sure of yourself. Very telling that.

[trotsky]

54. #Whataboutism n/t

[Voltaire2]

66. The fact that you started this thread

to deny that you are a child rape apologist is interesting.

[guillaumeb]

68. The thread concerns unsupported accusations.

Feel free to defend them if you wish.

But on the actual topic, not one person has made any case that the accusations are correct. Are such accusations what passes for dialogue?

[Voltaire2]

70. I understand that is what you thought it was about.

But it’s not really working out as intended, is it?

Next time you feel the need to start another outraged call out post I suggest you go offline for ten minutes and think about something else.

[guillaumeb]

71. So you admit that there is no defense for the claims.

Better would be if the maker of the easily disproven claims had never made them.

But this is what passes for dialogue among some.

Or, are you arguing in favor of the claims? If so, I suggest reading the post and the article first.

[Voltaire2]

72. No I admit that you made yet another huge blunder.

Was that not clear?

The more you jump up and down and scream “I am not a child abuse apologist” the worse it looks for you.

I’m suggesting you should stop doing that.

[Major Nikon]

77. Gil's latest canned reply is to pretend you agreed with him

Soon he will self-declare himself winner of the argument. Hard to lose when he is not only the “decider” of your argument, but is the sole arbiter of who the winner is.

[MineralMan]

78. So confusing...

It's a real conundrum, it is...

[guillaumeb]

82. I thought as much.

Speaking of your reply.

And the more people misrepresent what others can easily read...….?

[Voltaire2]

97. The more you kick this disaster of a thread

the more people will be reading your interesting op where you jump up and down and scream “I am not a child rape apologist!”

I suggest you stop doing that.

[MineralMan]

76. Not THAT interesting, really.

[njhoneybadger]

107. The Pope could change the Cannon laws regarding confessor confidentiality.

Don't you think he should guill ?

Then all state governments could follow up with mandatory reporting laws on clergy

[Major Nikon]

119. He said he's unsure whether the RCC should report child rape to the cops

He also posted an article from an RCC priest that says it's a bad idea to legally require the RCC to report child rape to the cops.

I suppose if one were to guess the answer to your question is 'no', but if you are looking for a straight answer from the one you asked of it my advice is to not wait up.

[njhoneybadger]

120. That priest probably confessed to another priest he's a child raper.

[guillaumeb]

153. He could, that is true.

But, as the author of the referenced article points out, this would not deter predators from preying.

[njhoneybadger]

154. It would if they're were in jail

what the author believes is not necessarily true.

[guillaumeb]

155. Jail is one solution.

And even thought sexual predation is illegal, the law does not stop predators from acting. And there does not seem to be any way to screen for predatory tendencies.

[njhoneybadger]

156. Mandatory reporting laws decrease and prevent child sexual predation.

Reporting acts as a screen for repeat offenders,right?

[guillaumeb]

158. Agreed, for repeat offenders.

But the larger issue of what causes and triggers predation remains.

[Voltaire2]

157. Not even one?

Seriously?

[guillaumeb]

159. Your hypothesis.

How would one prove it?

[Major Nikon]

163. No Gil, it's the "hypothesis" of numerous child welfare organizations

Very telling how you are championing the RCC's side of this.

[guillaumeb]

164. Link to it.

[Major Nikon]

168. Already did, Gil. You know the one you dismissed within moments of it being posted

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218305413

And yet here you are again, parroting out the RCC's apologia and continuing to defend it even though you claim you are "unsure".

[guillaumeb]

166. And:

Current child abuse prevention programs are focused primarily on educating preschool and elementary school children on how to recognize instances of abuse and teaching them personal safety skills. Programs may also focus on helping children who are victims of past or ongoing sexual abuse by encouraging them to disclose such incidents to parents or other responsible adults.3Research yields little evidence that such programs actually prevent the occurrence of child abuse. Although program evaluations demonstrate short-term knowledge gain, they fail to establish a link between such knowledge gain and the prevention of child sexual abuse.

The lack of conclusive outcomes does not necessarily mean that such programs are ineffective. Rather, demonstrating effectiveness is a challenging task, mainly because of the methodological shortcomings of existing evaluations. Such limitations include the absence of comparison groups, lack of pre-testing on measures of knowledge and skills, inadequate follow-up periods, and small sample size.4Future evaluations of existing child abuse prevention programs must correct such methodological shortcomings. Moreover, child sexual abuse prevention programs must be strengthened so that program strategies are more explicitly directed toward the goal of preventing child sexual abuse.

http://preventchildabuse.org/resource/preventing-child-sexual-abuse/

[Major Nikon]

167. Why are you even posting something that has absolutely nothing to do with mandatory reporting, Gil?

Do you think you can just divert from the RCC's child rape apologia?

[guillaumeb]

169. Read the highlighted parts.

And keep demonstrating your basic misunderstanding the term you used in the context of the actual article.

[Major Nikon]

172. The article has nothing to do with mandatory reporting, Gil. Nada. Zip. Not even mentioned.

If you want to continue talking about your diversion. Go right ahead. While you are out in la-la land thinking you found something that's even remotely relevant to what is being discussed I'll be ignoring your latest "delusion" as you say.

[Major Nikon]

160. Pathetic, isn't it?

Child welfare experts, prosecutors, and victims all lobbied for mandatory reporting laws for priests to help prevent ongoing child rapes and cover ups by the RCC, but we must consider the RCC's side and prove they are wrong because of ... well reasons. Not too hard to figure out what those reasons are.

[Major Nikon]

161. Sure, Gil. What better "author" than a RCC priest to tell us what won't prevent child rape

Pathetic.

[guillaumeb]

162. Delusion is thinking that predators will simply stop.

especially when actual evidence shows that they do not stop.

But some prefer their memes.

[Major Nikon]

165. No Gil, delusion is thinking the RCC is where you go to get solutions for child rape prevention

You know, like you do.

Nobody is saying we can prevent all child rape, so great job on the obvious strawman bullshit.

[marylandblue]

170. Nobody said predators will "simply stop" and that is not the purpose of mandatory reporting

So what it is your objection to mandatory reporting?

[guillaumeb]

171. I have no personal objection.

And I previously stated that.

[Major Nikon]

173. You said you were "unsure" if the RCC should be required to tell the authorities about child rape

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=305343

[guillaumeb]

174. And that was based on the information that the author wrote as to the efficacy

of the mandated reporting approach that made no exception for the Confessional seal.

[Major Nikon]

175. The author is an RCC priest who is saying secular laws on child rape shouldn't apply to the RCC

Very telling how you conveniently keep leaving that part out.

[guillaumeb]

176. Your framing is incorrect.

And easily contradicted by the actual article.

So again, you can claim whatever you want, but this claim is easily refuted.

[Major Nikon]

183. Oh bullshit, Gil. The author is a RCC priest. Your own source says so.

https://religionnews.com/author/tomreese/

You even admit he is lobbying to exempt the RCC from child rape reporting laws and you are "unsure" if this is a good idea or not.

I didn't misframe shit and you know it. It's ridiculously simple to prove otherwise. Your duplicity reeks of desperation.

[guillaumeb]

186. Simple, yes.

Duplicity? I do not call you duplicitous. My view is that you misunderstand what the phrase means, and this misunderstanding explains why you persist.

[Major Nikon]

189. Yeah, kinda funny how you claim there's a contradiction which you refuse to explain

Meanwhile I posted the links that proves your duplicity.

The author is a catholic priest which you can't even manage to admit, yet is easily provable from your own source. But I'm the one who just doesn't understand. Learn how to think, Gil.

https://religionnews.com/author/tomreese/

[guillaumeb]

177. And here is an excerpt that proves my point:

Because of the failure of Catholic bishops in the past to report abusive priests to authorities, states are now also including Catholic clergy as mandatory reporters.

Most bishops do not oppose making Catholic clergymen mandatory reporters except when it comes to what a priest hears in the sacrament of confession. For centuries, church law has forbidden priests to break the seal of confession, to reveal what they hear in confession. Breaking the seal is considered a grave sin, which cannot be forgiven by an ordinary priest or bishop but is reserved to a Vatican tribunal known as the Apostolic Penitentiary.
This confidentiality of confession was respected by Western nations for centuries, considering it on a par with client-attorney confidentiality. Note that no state is proposing that lawyers be mandatory reporters of what they learn about sexual abuse from their clients.

[marylandblue]

180. The priest wants an exception for confession, and people here object to that

The arguments he provides in support of his proposal are very weak, so I think he is wrong. What do you think? You said before you were unsure. But why?

[guillaumeb]

181. The often repeated claim:

Major Nikon (31,103 posts)
175. The author is an RCC priest who is saying secular laws on child rape shouldn't apply to the RCC

Very telling how you conveniently keep leaving that part out.

A claim that my excerpt easily disproves, but the claim is repeated over and over. So why is an easily refuted claim repeated?

I said I was unsure, and I clarified by referring to the author's own points.

[marylandblue]

184. Well, that is what that priest wants

More specifically, he doesn't want secular law to apply to the sacrament of confession, which is the thing Major Nikon is referring to. What in the article makes it even a question for you? His reasoning doesn't seem very sound at all.

[guillaumeb]

187. The claim is "child rape apologia".

And that claim is false.

[marylandblue]

190. instead of focusing on the definition of "child rape apologia"

Why don't you focus on the substantive issue behind it, which is that the sacrament of confession should provide an exemption to mandatory reporting. A lot of people don't think there should be such an exemption, but you are unsure. What is there to be unsure about?

[guillaumeb]

191. The accusation is incorrect. And words do matter.

The question, as framed in the article, poses some thoughts by the author as to why the proposed solution might not be a solution.


If anything, it can be called an apologia against mandatory elimination of the seal of the Confessional.

[marylandblue]

192. Substance matters more than words,

and in the religion group, we seem to only argue about words, rarely substance.

[Major Nikon]

182. The RCC thinks the RCC should be exempt from laws that protect children from child rape

We get that, Gil. You keep posting it over and over as if the RCC's child rape apologia is going to get any better.

[guillaumeb]

185. And you insist on demonstrating your agenda.

Unfortunately for you, the facts do not support your claim.

So as to your claim that. "we get that", no, you do not.

[Major Nikon]

188. So you are now the decider on what I do or don't understand?

Soon hip waders are going to be required equipment for those that haven't put you on ignore, Gil.

[tymorial]

178. And away we go.

[guillaumeb]

179. Thus it has ever been.

And thus shall it be.