4 ms·

Just the bay area had more than 700 lawsuits for child abuse filled against Catholic church employees in the last 3 years, so this catholic group and similar on

Just the bay area had more than 700 lawsuits for child abuse filled against Catholic church employees in the last 3 years, so this catholic group and similar ones maybe should redirect their efforts into outing child molesters first. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/lawsuits-name-hundreds-of-newly-accused-catholic-clergy-and-lay-employees-across-northern-ca/3163119/%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcbayarea.com/investigatio...

MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
[flagged]
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  Do you actually believe that homosexual men have more access to children than heterosexual men and that they are more prone to pedophilia? Why don't you think about this logically. Even if they overrepresented pedophiles by say 50% compared to hetero men and hetero men are 1% pedophiles, than means as 10% of the population you are looking at 0.5 * 0.1 = = 0.05 = 0.5%. Now say that homosexuals don't usually have access to children like men who have families do, but lets be generous and say that 50% of those men get unsupervised access to children and are practicing child molesters. That makes 0.25% of the population. Let's compare that to hetero men. At 90% of male population and 1% pedos that makes 0.9% of the population. Now, straight men have easier access to kids because, what do you know, they tend to help make them. So, lets say 75% even on the low side here makes 0.675% of active child molesters. 0.25% of men vs 0.675% of men. You really believe that your stats are correct? These are all bullshit napkin math but illustrate how this makes no logical sense, even with numbers HIGHLY skewed in your favor.
  - MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
    No the fact is that biological parents abusing their children is exceedingly rare, its usually mom's new boyfriend or such. This is one reason why religions codify life-long partnerships between biological parents - because everything else is child abuse.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      Which religions do this, and what did humans do before?
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      > biological parents abusing their children is exceedingly rare Even if one were to accept this as truth, this doesn't preclude them from abusing other children. This is where 'access' comes in. Most men with children are around children because their kids are friends with other kids, etc. Homosexual men generally do not have this access.
      - foldr 4y ago
        At this point you're arguing with someone who has literally just said that all children raised by (e.g.) adoptive parents are victims of child abuse. At least, I do not see how else to interpret "everything else is child abuse". The poster also has a recent history of pointlessly stirring the pot with regard to LGBT issues, as for example in the following post, where they (by some chain of logic I can't entirely follow) link the collapse of SVB (of all things!) to the fact that some of the people who worked there vocally supported LGBT rights: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35106648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35106648 This sort of thing is about, say, two steps removed from blaming gay people for floods and earthquakes. I share your annoyance at seeing this kind of stuff on HN (a depressingly frequent occurrence), but the comment you're replying to makes such outrageous claims that it is probably better to just leave it here.
        Eisenstein 4y ago
        I know this person is a lost cause but they aren't shouting into a void -- other people read these threads and in this instance I will not allow highly flawed bigoted argumentation to go unanswered.
    - mock-possum 4y ago
- foldr 4y ago
  You’re linking an article from 2002 that was controversial even at the time. You can see coverage from 2002 in the Washington Post, for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/06/29/pedophilia-and-homosexuality/b385cfb3-8b58-449d-8af9-0cfdcd278978/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/06/29/p... The author of the article, Timothy Dailey, is associated with the Family Research Council, which still in 2023 has this on its website: https://www.frc.org/homosexuality https://www.frc.org/homosexuality Now, why do you need to go back to an obscure article published over 20 years ago by a homophobic ultraconservative organization to source your claims? Perhaps because the vast majority of experts now believe these claims to be false.

MrBuddyCasino 4y ago

[flagged]

Eisenstein 4y ago
Do you actually believe that homosexual men have more access to children than heterosexual men and that they are more prone to pedophilia? Why don't you think about this logically. Even if they overrepresented pedophiles by say 50% compared to hetero men and hetero men are 1% pedophiles, than means as 10% of the population you are looking at 0.5 * 0.1 = = 0.05 = 0.5%. Now say that homosexuals don't usually have access to children like men who have families do, but lets be generous and say that 50% of those men get unsupervised access to children and are practicing child molesters. That makes 0.25% of the population. Let's compare that to hetero men. At 90% of male population and 1% pedos that makes 0.9% of the population. Now, straight men have easier access to kids because, what do you know, they tend to help make them. So, lets say 75% even on the low side here makes 0.675% of active child molesters. 0.25% of men vs 0.675% of men. You really believe that your stats are correct? These are all bullshit napkin math but illustrate how this makes no logical sense, even with numbers HIGHLY skewed in your favor.
- MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
  No the fact is that biological parents abusing their children is exceedingly rare, its usually mom's new boyfriend or such. This is one reason why religions codify life-long partnerships between biological parents - because everything else is child abuse.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    Which religions do this, and what did humans do before?
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    > biological parents abusing their children is exceedingly rare Even if one were to accept this as truth, this doesn't preclude them from abusing other children. This is where 'access' comes in. Most men with children are around children because their kids are friends with other kids, etc. Homosexual men generally do not have this access.
    - foldr 4y ago
      At this point you're arguing with someone who has literally just said that all children raised by (e.g.) adoptive parents are victims of child abuse. At least, I do not see how else to interpret "everything else is child abuse". The poster also has a recent history of pointlessly stirring the pot with regard to LGBT issues, as for example in the following post, where they (by some chain of logic I can't entirely follow) link the collapse of SVB (of all things!) to the fact that some of the people who worked there vocally supported LGBT rights: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35106648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35106648 This sort of thing is about, say, two steps removed from blaming gay people for floods and earthquakes. I share your annoyance at seeing this kind of stuff on HN (a depressingly frequent occurrence), but the comment you're replying to makes such outrageous claims that it is probably better to just leave it here.
      - Eisenstein 4y ago
        I know this person is a lost cause but they aren't shouting into a void -- other people read these threads and in this instance I will not allow highly flawed bigoted argumentation to go unanswered.
  - mock-possum 4y ago
foldr 4y ago
You’re linking an article from 2002 that was controversial even at the time. You can see coverage from 2002 in the Washington Post, for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/06/29/pedophilia-and-homosexuality/b385cfb3-8b58-449d-8af9-0cfdcd278978/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/06/29/p... The author of the article, Timothy Dailey, is associated with the Family Research Council, which still in 2023 has this on its website: https://www.frc.org/homosexuality https://www.frc.org/homosexuality Now, why do you need to go back to an obscure article published over 20 years ago by a homophobic ultraconservative organization to source your claims? Perhaps because the vast majority of experts now believe these claims to be false.