06 Feb 17
Originally posted by FMFsure
Of course not but it's not surprising that the shocking goings on in religious organizations - like the ones being investigated by the Royal Comission - come up on a forum like this populated in part by religious people and members of religious organisations.
Originally posted by karoly aczelFrom what I have read I think there is a statistical bias among male paedophiles to
Apparently they have an appetite for boys with 80-97% of claimants being male
Weirdo priests.
Shame on the other priests for not saying something earlier
perpetrate acts against children of the same sex. This of course is not proof that
homosexuals have a greater propensity to offend against children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
Its really interesting the way society and the courts have dealt with paedophiles. They are
a kind of subhuman gangrene that must be cut off and purged lest their monstrous
actions permeate the whole.
You will find extra judicial killings everywhere, e.g. In the UK Andrew Cunningham was
stabbed fifty times and had his genitals cut off. In Bolivia lynch mobs stormed a police
station, hailed the alleged paedophile out and killed him, Its not an infrequent
occurrence.
Even judicially some states like Louisiana have the death sentence for rape of a minor.
Others proscribe chemical castration and for a while literal castration was seen as a
viable solution.
What are we to make of it?
06 Feb 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot proof, just evidence.
From what I have read I think there is a statistical bias among male paedophiles to
perpetrate acts against children of the same sex. This of course is not proof that
homosexuals have a greater propensity to offend against children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
Its really interesting the way society and the courts have dea ...[text shortened]... for a while literal castration was seen as a
viable solution.
What are we to make of it?
As for the topic, by your actions you are known.
Originally posted by EladarEvidence that homosexuals are more likely to engage in acts of paedophilia? I reject the
Not proof, just evidence.
As for the topic, by your actions you are known.
argument on the basis that its illogical. It does not follow.
I agree that actions are defining but not everyone shares the belief. From what I
understand though the conventional view is that its a mixture of environment and biology.
https://neuroanthropology.net/2010/05/10/inside-the-mind-of-a-pedophile/
06 Feb 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHomosexuality is by definition sexually immoral behavior. If 100 percent of the population are sexual deviants, then they will have a higher probability when compared to a group which is not.
Evidence that homosexuals are more likely to engage in acts of paedophilia? I reject the
argument on the basis that its illogical. It does not follow.
I agree that actions are defining but not everyone shares the belief. From what I
understand though the conventional view is that its a mixture of environment and biology.
https://neuroanthropology.net/2010/05/10/inside-the-mind-of-a-pedophile/
Originally posted by EladarThe reality is not so simple. There are considered to be two types of paedophiles, those who focus exclusively on children and have no interest in adults and those who are not exclusive paedophiles. This is further compounded by the idea that there are homosexual paedophiles and bi-sexual paedophiles. There are also female paedophiles.
Homosexuality is by definition sexually immoral behavior. If 100 percent of the population are sexual deviants, then they will have a higher probability when compared to a group which is not.
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK if you want to make distincyion betweem bi sexual men and homosexual, I will agree with you that between those two groups there is no reason to assume different rates.
The reality is not so simple. There are considered to be two types of paedophiles, those who focus exclusively on children and have no interest in adults and those who are not exclusive paedophiles. This is further compounded by the idea that there are homosexual paedophiles and bi-sexual paedophiles. There are also female paedophiles.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou always claim you didn't not know what "saved" means. I simply don't believe you robbie; it is this kind of intellectual dishonesty over the years that has brought you the poor reputation you have here. Jesus quite adequately explained what the concept meant to Nicodemus in john 3:1. Paul and Silas explained what it meant to be "saved" to jailer the in Acts 16:30.
Saved? I have no idea what that means FMF, saved can mean different things to different people? Its an ambiguous term.
Furthermore your protestations in this thread that you have no vested interest because it is Catholics in focus, is complete dishonesty again by you. You have a vested interest because your nasty pernicious cult does not bring its child abusing leaders to the authorities, as we have extensively demonstrated in this forum several times.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWould you describe yourself as opposed to purging and then cutting off people who fail to live up to a group's norms and rules?
Its really interesting the way society and the courts have dealt with paedophiles. They are
a kind of subhuman gangrene that must be cut off and purged lest their monstrous
actions permeate the whole.
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not sure what to make of all this but it is clear that we cant just leave the Catholic church to his weed out the bad priests.
From what I have read I think there is a statistical bias among male paedophiles to
perpetrate acts against children of the same sex. This of course is not proof that
homosexuals have a greater propensity to offend against children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
Its really interesting the way society and the courts have dea ...[text shortened]... for a while literal castration was seen as a
viable solution.
What are we to make of it?
Apparently the church has been doing it's own investigations and "handling" these problems without any independent agencies . Something not right about that.