JUST IN: Satanic Temple member found guilty of possession of 'very disturbing' child pornography in Idaho: police. "Numerous files of very disturbing child abuse and child pornography were found in Russell's possession during the investigation. Russell is a member of the Idaho chapter of The Satanic
(thepostmillennial.com)
🤢 FAGGOT-GATE 🤢
You've mistaken a brittle branch for a mighty limb. The first one I've seen before and based my public school claim on, the second one I found today while writing the comment I brought it up in. I try very hard to not make claims I can't back up with at least something (whether logical reasoning or evidence).
https://go2tutors.com/teachers-more-likely-abuse-kids/ (if I'm being honest here, the mere existence of this link proves me wrong about NOBODY bringing up teachers)
https://www.votf.org/wp-content/uploads/John_Jay_Causes_and_Context_Report.pdf
I'm sure you'll find plenty of ways to write off these numbers so that you're still right in your mind, and I'm still wrong in your mind.
This is the thing: I'm sure you could find plenty of your own numbers, and I'm not very interested in slinging numbers back and forth while we each pretend ours are better just because we believe them. These things are hard to figure out, particularly because people don't always come forward, and also because there are false cases. Among other things, of course.
Now, what do you propose I believe? That the Church I believe to be inerrant and the very religion I hold total faith in is only kind of morally righteous? We're pretty good, but those gays over there have some good stuff going for them too.
And me challenging the existence of something is not ignoring it. The things you claim about the Church are simply untrue, I can't be ignoring something that doesn't exist. And unfortunately, I can't ignore it because people love to repeat it again and again. I mean, it's not like I haven't looked. I'm sure I could always look better, longer, etc. but I have looked. And I've seen no evidence outside of the usual cherry-picked tripe.
How do you propose I acknowledge the pedo priests that do exist, though? All I can really do is acknowledge their existence, the same as I do for teachers and Joe Biden. And it's not like I regularly talk about pedo teachers while ignoring priests (though who can resist talking about the Sniffer in Chief?), but when I see the priest shit, I feel compelled to point out that it isn't true. My usual method is comparing the rate to the rate of public school teachers, since I think that demonstrates quite well that it's not an unusual rate unique to priests. Unless you're ready to claim that the public schools are diddling at an absurdly high rate and that the Church is also up there, just not as bad.
What exactly have I claimed that is not true?
That there are members that are pedophiles?
That the Catholic Church has a reputation for covering up cases of their priests sexually abusing kids?
Nothing I have said here is untrue. You might not like how I said it, but I'm not responsible for your feelings.
You know exactly what you said that is not true:
"Because I'm pretty sure there's been a pedophile a time or two amongst members of pretty much every denomination of Christianity. And then you have the entire Catholic Church, of course."
You make a special point to shit on Catholics separate from Protestants in most of your replies.
And while you obviously were exaggerating, everybody here knows you meant to insinuate that the Catholic Church has much higher rates. That it is an issue unique to the Roman Catholic Church.
In reality, you have nothing and your claim is false. In addition, you can't or won't defend any of your other statements, all of which I have responded to in full. I've thrown in plenty of opening to reconcile and come to some middle ground, but if you don't want to bite, then you can take your feelings and keep on asking them what to respond with next.
So it's ok with you if I shit on Protestants? Just not Catholics? You want preferential treatment for your religion, right? I keep pointing out that you're making my argument for me. And everytime you seem to take it as a challenge to do it again.
I think I understand your issue though. I meant to say "And then you have the entire Catholic Church scandal." Obviously, I don't think everyone in the Catholic Church is a pedophile.
I'm not sure what "middle ground" you want to come to.
I think you're a hypocrite. And I still don't see where you've pointed out what I've lied about.
If you're denying that the Catholic Church hasn't covered up cases of priests sexually abusing kids, then nothing I will say is going to matter.
Take your straw man and shove it up your ass, dude. My patience for that shit is wearing thin, and that isn't the first time you've done it.
I'm frankly not quite sure if I believe you, but if you did indeed intend to put scandal, we disagree on pretty much nothing here and this has been mostly a misunderstanding. My only disagreement was with you claiming that the rate of pedo priests is higher than average, which is in my view the only way to properly understand what you wrote.
If you did mean to put scandal, the door is opened up to the option that you were simply listing all the places the pedo shit happens (i.e. everywhere) and didn't intend to imply any one being worse than the other.
Forgot to add: and no, I'm not denying that they've been less than truthful with the scandal, unfortunately. They're in a hard place, but lying about it doesn't help.