The post that was quoted here has been removedAre you really trying to convince us that claiming that the Church is "rife with abuse" doesn't imply priests are more likely to be paedophiles?
Please explain how they can be riddled with child abusers but not be more likely to be abusers. This should be fun.
Take an institution at random -- say, the Holy Ecumenical Lysenkoist Lobby (HELL). Statistics show that the likelihood of any institute official being of a certain persuasion (let's say, setting cats on fire) is the same on average as for any other person in society generally. However whereas cat-burning is regarded with horror in society at large and feline flamers are instantly incarcerated, tabby torchers in HELL are simply moved to another franchise on discovery of their deeds.
I'd guess that the incidence of cats catching fire 'accidentally' would be higher within HELL than without -- that the rate of institutional abuse is likely to be higher within an institution that condones it regardless of the fact that individuals within the institute are no more likely to abuse than ordinary people. However I have no statistical basis for comparison, so it's just a guess.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBut which institution condones child abuse?
Take an institution at random -- say, the Holy Ecumenical Lysenkoist Lobby (HELL). Statistics show that the likelihood of any institute official being of a certain persuasion (let's say, setting cats on fire) is the same on average as for any other person in society generally. However whereas cat-burning is regarded with horror in society at large and ...[text shortened]... ordinary people. However I have no statistical basis for comparison, so it's just a guess.
Originally posted by PalynkaLet's say 'covers it up' rather than 'condones'.
But which institution condones child abuse?
An example would be the school system in South Africa (to talk about something I know) -- teachers known to be child abusers have often been quietly asked to go elsewhere, to avoid scandal, and so have been able to find further victims. There I'd say you have an example where the incidence of abuse is higher within the institution even though the likelihood of any given teacher being an abuser is the same for any citizen.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 213582
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIn HELL wouldn't there be, statistically, a greater likelihood of more things (cats, furniture, toast, whatever) catching fire than in the other institutions say like Wanton Afterlife Theoretical Expectation Religion (WATER)?
Take an institution at random -- say, the Holy Ecumenical Lysenkoist Lobby (HELL). Statistics show that the likelihood of any institute official being of a certain persuasion (let's say, setting cats on fire) is the same on average as for any other person in society generally. However whereas cat-burning is regarded with horror in society at large and ...[text shortened]... ordinary people. However I have no statistical basis for comparison, so it's just a guess.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 213582
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIs the reason for any of these "coverups" money?
Let's say 'covers it up' rather than 'condones'.
An example would be the school system in South Africa (to talk about something I know) -- teachers known to be child abusers have often been quietly asked to go elsewhere, to avoid scandal, and so have been able to find further victims. There I'd say you have an example where the incidence of abuse i ...[text shortened]... en though the likelihood of any given teacher being an abuser is the same for any citizen.
Originally posted by Palynkalol
Are you really trying to convince us that claiming that the Church is "rife with abuse" doesn't imply priests are more likely to be paedophiles?
Please explain how they can be riddled with child abusers but not be more likely to be abusers. This should be fun.