Hypocrisy Check

[sangha]

Most likely not.

Pedophilia is not homosexuality. Or heterosexuality. It's a sexual orientation to children.

I see, so it shouldn't matter what sex the child is, right? Yet most child molesters have been found to pick one sex or the other, they rarely cross over.

And I see that we haven't as yet come up with how many little girls were molested by priests in the RC church yet either. Where are those numbers?

SO you're OK with pedophilia as long as it doesn't happen too often

Classy.

 

[Sheldon]

I must have missed something. What does pedophilia have to do with the hypothetical in the OP?

 

[Coyote]

The problem with chemical castration is making sure they keep taking it. Otherwise, it wears off.

I think castration without a pain killer would do them justice.

Throw them in the general population of the prison after you change their name to Stacie. I have a few other ideas on how to handle these types of people.

A rubber band or some vice grips would do the job

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, they don't have to have tolerance or respect for their neighbor's feelings then? Only everyone else? Why is that?

All of America was impacted by 9/11. By your logic, all mosques represent, to at least some extent, symbols of disrespect of their neighbors' feelings.

Where do you want to draw the line? How big do you want the circles of disrespect-free zones to be? Where do you want them drawn?

I'm not talking about a 'line'.

I'm specifically talking about the muslims responsible for building this specific mosque blocks away from the most horrific islamic terrorist attack to ever occur. Why can't they respect how their neighbors, who were greatly impacted by this attack, feel about them placing a reminder and symbol of that attack right where it happened. Why do you not question their ideals and their lack of feeling?

You didn't answer my question. Where do YOU draw the line?

If a mosque is a symbol of the attack is the Confederate flag a symbol of slavery?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hypocrisy check?

How many here have thought that blacks who are offended by monuments to the Confederacy, and various other sympathetic symbols to the same,

should get over it?

I thought hypocrisy was the subject of the thread.

No takers?

lol, it's always different when it's your guys isn't it?

 

[Nonelitist]

All of America was impacted by 9/11. By your logic, all mosques represent, to at least some extent, symbols of disrespect of their neighbors' feelings.

Where do you want to draw the line? How big do you want the circles of disrespect-free zones to be? Where do you want them drawn?

I'm not talking about a 'line'.

I'm specifically talking about the muslims responsible for building this specific mosque blocks away from the most horrific islamic terrorist attack to ever occur. Why can't they respect how their neighbors, who were greatly impacted by this attack, feel about them placing a reminder and symbol of that attack right where it happened. Why do you not question their ideals and their lack of feeling?

You didn't answer my question. Where do YOU draw the line?

If a mosque is a symbol of the attack is the Confederate flag a symbol of slavery?

The Confederate Flag is the symbol of some States that wanted out of the Union and fought when the Union invaded their territory.

So... no... it doesn't represent slavery.

Remember how you guys say that the people in Iraq are simply fighting against their attackers? Kinda the same thing. Or do you have a double standard?

 

[Againsheila]

IMO, if we allow Catholics to build churches near schools, we should allow Muslims to build mosques near the WTC site

BTW - they're not building on the site of the WTC and they're not building a mosque.

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

You are condemning an entire religion based on the actions of a few?

My neighbor is catholic, should I not allow her near my kids?

I do not think a church or a mosque near a school is anywhere near putting a mosque at ground zero. I haven't been paying attention to this story...truth is I don't think it's important enough to get your panties in a wad. I doubt they will let a mosque be built at ground zero and if there is one close by, so what? Not all Muslims are responsible for 9/11 anymore than all Catholics are responsible for the priests that abused children.

 

[Newby]

All of America was impacted by 9/11. By your logic, all mosques represent, to at least some extent, symbols of disrespect of their neighbors' feelings.

Where do you want to draw the line? How big do you want the circles of disrespect-free zones to be? Where do you want them drawn?

I'm not talking about a 'line'.

I'm specifically talking about the muslims responsible for building this specific mosque blocks away from the most horrific islamic terrorist attack to ever occur. Why can't they respect how their neighbors, who were greatly impacted by this attack, feel about them placing a reminder and symbol of that attack right where it happened. Why do you not question their ideals and their lack of feeling?

You didn't answer my question. Where do YOU draw the line?

If a mosque is a symbol of the attack is the Confederate flag a symbol of slavery?

No, it's you who's never acknowledged my question. Why don't you question or condemn the American Muslim community, who if they cared for their fellow Americans in New York, wouldn't disrespect them by putting a reminder so close to the location of a terrible act perpetrated by fellow Muslims? Why aren't they accountable for any ideals, but yet the rest of us are?

 

[martybegan]

What was the ratio? Where are the numbers? I'm sure you have them since you're so concerned. I've seen the majority of complaints filed were from the molestation of boys. Are you insinuating that had nothing to do with the priests in question being homosexual?

Most likely not.

Pedophilia is not homosexuality. Or heterosexuality. It's a sexual orientation to children.

It is pedophillia when it is pre-pubescent children. Once you get to the 12-16 year range it is technically pederasty. From what I have seen most of the Church cases involved pederasty and not true pedophillia.

The "latent sexuality" cause as the reasoning for the molestation in the church gets more support if most of the cases are pederasty and not clinical pedophilla. The reason the pedo term is used is because the media is quite frankly, lazy,

 

[Coyote]

Most likely not.

Pedophilia is not homosexuality. Or heterosexuality. It's a sexual orientation to children.

It is pedophillia when it is pre-pubescent children. Once you get to the 12-16 year range it is technically pederasty. From what I have seen most of the Church cases involved pederasty and not true pedophillia.

The "latent sexuality" cause as the reasoning for the molestation in the church gets more support if most of the cases are pederasty and not clinical pedophilla. The reason the pedo term is used is because the media is quite frankly, lazy,

You make a good point. According to what I recently read,the majority of abuse is on post-pubertal children around 16 or 17 and they term it "hebephilia". When it's children of that age than it would be homosexuality. One estimate seems to be around 3% of priests are involved - a smaller number then the general population.

You are right though, it's a lazy media - pedophile is much more attention getting as well.

Either way though, the priests are abusing a trust.

 

[martybegan]

It is pedophillia when it is pre-pubescent children. Once you get to the 12-16 year range it is technically pederasty. From what I have seen most of the Church cases involved pederasty and not true pedophillia.

The "latent sexuality" cause as the reasoning for the molestation in the church gets more support if most of the cases are pederasty and not clinical pedophilla. The reason the pedo term is used is because the media is quite frankly, lazy,

You make a good point. According to what I recently read,the majority of abuse is on post-pubertal children around 16 or 17 and they term it "hebephilia". When it's children of that age than it would be homosexuality. One estimate seems to be around 3% of priests are involved - a smaller number then the general population.

You are right though, it's a lazy media - pedophile is much more attention getting as well.

Either way though, the priests are abusing a trust.

Agreed on that. I guess hebephillia is clinical for "dirty old man"

 

[Coyote]

You make a good point. According to what I recently read,the majority of abuse is on post-pubertal children around 16 or 17 and they term it "hebephilia". When it's children of that age than it would be homosexuality. One estimate seems to be around 3% of priests are involved - a smaller number then the general population.

You are right though, it's a lazy media - pedophile is much more attention getting as well.

Either way though, the priests are abusing a trust.

Agreed on that. I guess hebephillia is clinical for "dirty old man"

Nah...the technical term there is...err....Old Fart

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not talking about a 'line'.

I'm specifically talking about the muslims responsible for building this specific mosque blocks away from the most horrific islamic terrorist attack to ever occur. Why can't they respect how their neighbors, who were greatly impacted by this attack, feel about them placing a reminder and symbol of that attack right where it happened. Why do you not question their ideals and their lack of feeling?

You didn't answer my question. Where do YOU draw the line?

If a mosque is a symbol of the attack is the Confederate flag a symbol of slavery?

No, it's you who's never acknowledged my question. Why don't you question or condemn the American Muslim community, who if they cared for their fellow Americans in New York, wouldn't disrespect them by putting a reminder so close to the location of a terrible act perpetrated by fellow Muslims? Why aren't they accountable for any ideals, but yet the rest of us are?

Because ideals are what you pursue regardless of whether or not others pursue them. That's what makes them ideals, and not just business as usual.

 

[Big Fitz]

I see, so it shouldn't matter what sex the child is, right? Yet most child molesters have been found to pick one sex or the other, they rarely cross over.

And I see that we haven't as yet come up with how many little girls were molested by priests in the RC church yet either. Where are those numbers?

SO you're OK with pedophilia as long as it doesn't happen too often

Classy.

You seem focused on accusing all priests of being pedophiles, and nothing more. Lame debate tactic.

Particularly after I scotch-hobbled your issue on pedophilia.

move on or step up and say something intelligible beyond durka durka jihad jihad.

 

[CurveLight]

Let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's assume that on 9/11 2001 the terrorist attack did not occur on US soil. Let's say for the sake of argument that the planes were flown into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur by a cadre of 19 radical Christians from a fringe sect supported by massive wealth and resources who desire to destroy anything that brings wealth to Muslims and Islamic nations. In the attack over 2000 Indonesian Muslims die and it is a great national and international tragedy.

Now, 8 years later, the desire to rebuild the Petronas Towers is underway and out of the blue people realize that there are plans for a Christian Megachurch to be placed on the same location as the Petronas Towers. Of course the plan is being supported by people who don't directly support the terrorists but when you get them in private are ardent believers that what was done was the right thing. Of course in the name of tolerance, diversity and international friedship the project is okayed by the city council of Kuala Lumpur.

Should the church be built on the same site that was destroyed by Christian Radicals in the largest act of hatred towards innocent civilians in history?

Mosque supporters are encouraged to say why they believe why or why not this is right.

IMO, if we allow Catholics to build churches near schools, we should allow Muslims to build mosques near the WTC site

BTW - they're not building on the site of the WTC and they're not building a mosque.

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

Somewhat valid point because the clear majority of muslim leaders condemn terrorism while the clear majority of Catholic leaders condoned pedophilia by protecting pedophiles and threatening ex-communication to priests who reported child abuse to local authorities.

 

[CurveLight]

Let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's assume that on 9/11 2001 the terrorist attack did not occur on US soil. Let's say for the sake of argument that the planes were flown into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur by a cadre of 19 radical Christians from a fringe sect supported by massive wealth and resources who desire to destroy anything that brings wealth to Muslims and Islamic nations. In the attack over 2000 Indonesian Muslims die and it is a great national and international tragedy.

Now, 8 years later, the desire to rebuild the Petronas Towers is underway and out of the blue people realize that there are plans for a Christian Megachurch to be placed on the same location as the Petronas Towers. Of course the plan is being supported by people who don't directly support the terrorists but when you get them in private are ardent believers that what was done was the right thing. Of course in the name of tolerance, diversity and international friedship the project is okayed by the city council of Kuala Lumpur.

Should the church be built on the same site that was destroyed by Christian Radicals in the largest act of hatred towards innocent civilians in history?

Mosque supporters are encouraged to say why they believe why or why not this is right.

IMO, if we allow Catholics to build churches near schools, we should allow Muslims to build mosques near the WTC site

BTW - they're not building on the site of the WTC and they're not building a mosque.

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

Plumbers have raped children. No plumbers near schools.

The vast majority of catholic priests have never abused a child. You are applying the rule of the exception.

That is a really ignorant counter. Leaders of plumbing unions didn't send out a letter threatening to ban plumbers from the union if they reported child rape to authorities.

 

[Big Fitz]

Hypocrisy check?

How many here have thought that blacks who are offended by monuments to the Confederacy, and various other sympathetic symbols to the same,

should get over it?

I thought hypocrisy was the subject of the thread.

No takers?

lol, it's always different when it's your guys isn't it?

No the subject is the hypocrisy of those who say that a mosque should be built near/on/close enough to the WTC, is no problem and those who resist it are racist islamophobes. While on the other hand if it happened to an islamic nation by radical Christians who then wanted to put a church in the area would be an abhorant idea.

It's about a particular issue of hypocrisy, not a grab bag.

 

[Big Fitz]

Ah no wonder the lunatics are coming out in force, we got bumped to the Conspiracy Zone. Well I'm done with this thread then. Too bad really. It was a much better thread than to deserve this fate.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Ah no wonder the lunatics are coming out in force, we got bumped to the Conspiracy Zone. Well I'm done with this thread then. Too bad really. It was a much better thread than to deserve this fate.

you should think of a non-idiot scenario next time. but i am confused that it got moved to conspiracy, normally that is a current event.

 

[CurveLight]

Hypocrisy check?

How many here have thought that blacks who are offended by monuments to the Confederacy, and various other sympathetic symbols to the same,

should get over it?

I thought hypocrisy was the subject of the thread.

No takers?

lol, it's always different when it's your guys isn't it?

No the subject is the hypocrisy of those who say that a mosque should be built near/on/close enough to the WTC, is no problem and those who resist it are racist islamophobes. While on the other hand if it happened to an islamic nation by radical Christians who then wanted to put a church in the area would be an abhorant idea.

It's about a particular issue of hypocrisy, not a grab bag.

You're assuming most of us who don't take issue with the mosque would take issue with the christian church. This thread belongs in the conspiracy forum because you had a preconceived conspiracy conclusion in your mind before you even shit out the op.