It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jaw-dropping paramoralism: "It's Not Pedophilia If the Boys Were Post-Pubescent"

page: 5
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


Are there any non-paedophile priests in the RC church?

Yes, of course there are.

Thing is though, the 'lumping together' is so, because apart from there being a significantly higher proportion of these slime paedophiles posing as good people within the RC church, the vast majority of the non-paedophile priests (and nuns for that matter) actively aids and abets the paedophiles by covering the crimes up, and not speaking out against them.

So really, the child rapist and the conspirators who hide it are all as guilty as each other.

That's why there's the 'lumping together'.




posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterall
I am sorry that sensational wording trumps logic in this case.


I'll post the quote again.

"It isn't pedophilia because most of the boys were post pubescent".

Those other boys who were not post pubescent had a pedophile rape them. Period.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I'm posting this everywhere I can, this needs to be seen.

What proof do we need to show the true insanity of these people?



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by kenton1234
 


Kenton, I tried my best to not confuse the issue in my original post. Looking back this one section might have left some doubt.




And so, I think we can all agree that there are and were and perhaps have always been homosexual priests in the Catholic Church. My point is that what was a safe harbor for men with what most of us now consider normal adult sexualities also became a haven for damaged deviants. This was the aforementioned "splintering" of the priesthood. I don't have to elaborate here on how pedophiles take advantage of situations. We can all agree that the daily settings of the Catholic Church were fertile for child predation by adults in power.


What I meant here by "what most of us now consider normal adult sexualities" includes both heterosexuality and homosexuality as "normal adult sexualities". The "splintering" I am referring to is the hetero and homosexual priests as opposed to the pedophile priests. These are the divergent groupings. Most agree that pedophilia is not exclusive to a particular sexuality. I just wanted to clear up any confusion. Homosexuality is not pedophilia. Once again, my opinion.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Totally man. I just find it beyond me to comprehend something like that as an 'out' for the wrong they are doing. For some GOD FORSAKEN REASON I'm just programmed to believe if you're having sex with a 12 or 13 year old you're a sick son of a b$@#$, not a homosexual. I'm sure the gay community takes huge offense to this. And unless I'm mistaken from my upbringing within a Catholic Church, homosexuality is "extremely frowned upon". I guess in their minds they are just taking 'the less of the extremes'? People make me sick, what a joke, seriously. Some people are just better off dead.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


I agree. What more needs to be done for us to prove these people are not the ones that should be put on a pedestal and idolized?

If you are not willing to leave the Church then you are an accomplice. You should be condoning this and making the Church pay for it's wrong-doings.

I do not know what it will take for people to see the Church is a waste of our money and time, they have held us back in so many ways.

Happy easter friday everyone.


Pred...



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


if they are having sex with these boys, aren't they themselves the gays , whose fault it would then be?

So they are essentially blaming themselves anyways or the ones involved who represent the church...


Makes no sense and anyone with half a brain could figure it out.....Seems some people still have just that though....half a brain when they come up with their "reasonings "



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma

You can call them Autobots if you like and that doesn't change the fact that they are reprehensible monsters.

Bill Donohue seems to want to write them off as homosexuals and not "child molesters" since he avoids that classification in this segment but I haven't seen the whole thing.

He seems to think that keeping homosexuals out of the church is a solution to prevent child molestation, yet some priests have molested children of the opposite sex so I guess they need to keep heterosexuals out too?

Although I get his point about the literal term pedophilia, it would be nice if he added the "child molester" part into it rather than arguing against labeling them as a pedophile threat when they are truly a homosexual threat.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by lee anoma]


In defense of pedophiles, while we are debating semantics here, I don't think they are necessarily child molesters. Pedophilia is a sexual abnormality, not an action. Someone may be attracted to young children but may never act on that attraction in any way because they feel it would be morally wrong to do so. Another point to consider is that, just as homosexuals don't choose to be attracted to members of the same sex, pedophiles don't choose to be attracted to kids. Nor do heterosexuals choose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex.

Also, I think that the comment about molestation of 12 and 13 year old boys by priests not being the church's problem but rather the gays' problem is like saying if I have sex with a 12-year-old girl (I'm 31) it is a heterosexual problem. You can't blame an entire class of people for the actions of a few. Well, you can, but it makes you incorrect and a douchebag.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Loki Lyesmyth
 

Sorry not true.

la.indymedia.org...



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterall

Originally posted by kenton1234
reply to post by rufusdrak
 

"I'm not backing them up but TECHNICALLY he might be right. The TECHNICAL TERM Pedophile I believe refers to children whereas when they're pubescent the term is not pedophilia but Ephebophilia."
 

He can call it whatever makes him sleep better at nights but it's still called raping little children where I come from.


The point is that people are rarely punished for crimes they did NOT comit. If you want them punished, you need to address the actual crime they comitted. Would accusing them of stealing get them locked up for rape? Would accusing them of murder get them locked up for rape? Would accusing them of pedophilia get them locked up for rape?

No, no, and no. The evidence will show in each case that that is not the crime that happened. Accusing him of child rape - might just get him locked up for rape.

I am sorry that sensational wording trumps logic in this case.


This is accurate. If you're going to accuse someone, accuse them with the proper terminology and of the proper crime.
It may be heinous but if you want to keep yourself from being ignorant it's best to research it and accuse people properly otherwise you just end up sounding like an ignorant alarmist.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by rufusdrak
 

"This is accurate. If you're going to accuse someone, accuse them with the proper terminology and of the proper crime.
It may be heinous but if you want to keep yourself from being ignorant it's best to research it and accuse people properly otherwise you just end up sounding like an ignorant alarmist."
 


Well then by all means please enlighten this ignorant alarmist. What is the proper terminology of a child rapist?



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Parallex
 

The news of the liberal teachers union across this country molesting many more children than the church has hit the news but everyone wants to seem to keep that quiet. I mean they must because you never hear anyone talk bout that.
When people don't speak up they send a loud message that it is ok. It needs to be fixed everywhere it is found. The reason it isn't talked about outside of religion is because people like planned parenthood are making huge money off of statutory rape. They use the media to keep us talking about the church so no one will begin talking about them and God forbid do something to stop their sick gravy train.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenton1234
reply to post by rufusdrak
 

"This is accurate. If you're going to accuse someone, accuse them with the proper terminology and of the proper crime.
It may be heinous but if you want to keep yourself from being ignorant it's best to research it and accuse people properly otherwise you just end up sounding like an ignorant alarmist."
 


Well then by all means please enlighten this ignorant alarmist. What is the proper terminology of a child rapist?


Here's a definition of pedophile for you: "Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children"

If the child is POST PUBESCENT not pre-pubescent, then all I'm saying is that the correct definition would not necessarily be pedophile would it?

There is an alternative definition for people interested in roughly the 14-19 age group. And that is Ephebophile. If you want to be an educated civil member of society then I exhort you to learn the difference. If you want to be a sabre rattling ignorant redneck that just screams "Burn the witch! Burn the witch!" then by all means continue as you were.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by RedDragon
 

Or it could be at 12 years old you just had an over inflated view of yourself.
I believe you have a right to your beliefs. The constitution gives you that. But it is quite obvious you believe everyone on this planet must believe the way you do and if they do not it is your job and right to humiliate them. I have always been curious about people like that.
Can you tell me exactly how you know for sure there is no God?





[edit on 2-4-2010 by rick1]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Afterall
 


I cannot believe your coming up with an intellectual 'out' for these bastards!


I cannot believe it either. It must be because I am not.


So, if their rape victims are 12 or 13, that somehow means they are no longer children then does it?


You are not reading my posts. There is a difference between "child" and "prepubescent" and "pubescent" in the eyes of the law. Sorry, that is just the way it is. I still do not see how this provides an out.


Despite your definition or the probable closet paedophile that defined it, MY definition of a snake in the grass, morally vacant, evil child rapist is a paedophile.


That is why they get away with it. I never once defended the rape of a child. I am simply trying to get across that the only way to prosecute a crime is to charge with the accurate crime. If you charge someone with pedophilia and it turns out they were a child rapist but not a pedophile, you lose. Just call it what it is - child rape. Is that not bad enough for you?


These 'people' deliberately slither their way into positions of perceived trust and authority with access to many children as their ultimate goal.

That's is called 'Grooming'. Raping a minor is child molestation and sexual and mental abuse. I do not see or accept the distinction. Frankly, i believe only someone with similar sexual proclivities would.






Yeah, thanks for the lesson. At least show me the respect of actually reading my words if you are going to argue with me about them.

Child rape is plenty bad and I am most certainly not defending it. I am simply pointing out that the article in the OP is correct. If you want to hang him, you have to charge him for the right crime. Why is that so hard for some of you?

What you fail to realize is that it is you that is providing the out by blinding yourself to the real crime that is heinous enough because you have some 'feeling' you need to express. He will walk free and you can feel good knowing you changed the meaning of one word in your own personal context. Nice!

[edit on 4/2/10 by Afterall]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenton1234

Well then by all means please enlighten this ignorant alarmist. What is the proper terminology of a child rapist?


"Child rapist" seems to work. Or "child molester" if there's no actual rape.

I'll echo some of the other posters and say that regardless of the semantics of it, I'm bothered by how he frames this as a "homosexual crisis" and asserts that now that there are more guards against "practicing homosexuals" entering the priesthood it will get better.

It seems to me that it's a rape/sexual abuse crisis. A crisis in how the Catholic Church has responded in the past to allegations of sexual crimes by priests, and a lack of trust that they would respond differently now. Mr. Donahue may be right that the vast majority of these cases involved boys who were past puberty and are therefore not pedophilic. Nevertheless, using one's position of trust to abuse a young teenager (male or female) seems to me to be evidence not necessarily of homosexuality or heterosexuality, but of a level of sexual angst at the core of the perpetrator.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenton1234

Well then by all means please enlighten this ignorant alarmist. What is the proper terminology of a child rapist?


This is probably going to come as a shock. I think it is latin for something, I do not know. It is so obscure, you never would have been able to guess without heavy research. Here we go. The term for people who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children is pedophile. We established that. It does not even necessarily have to do with rape, it is about desire.

Now.....

The proper term for "Child Rapist" is

drum roll please





CHILD RAPIST!!!!!

Is that term not bad enough?



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join