What a farking lunatic.

President Merkin Muffley: notatrollorami: ///Sequestered prison island for life or death, either way. For any true child predator.

Congratulations on increasing the number of child murders. Why do you hate children?

I understand the practical nature of that argument. It stands to reason that the worse the punishment for a given crime the greater the lengths a perpetrator will go to avoid getting caught. How then do we adjust the scales of justice? A night in the stockades with the townspeople jeering for kiddy diddling? Surely that would avoid any temptation the otherwise nice diddler might have to off the kid?

////Not actually a death penalty advocate because the system can't be trusted. Mostly I intended to express the notion that no child predator, if actually guilty, should ever have access to children again. Ever. First offense. It's an unchangeable predilection. But then I'm back to having to trust the system.

///Bad people on every side ruin everything for everyone.

Agent Smiths Laugh: But see, that's part of the problem with theists. Too many of them presume that if we don't subscribe to their particular myth and all it includes, we must surely be unable to behave in any moral manner.

This is by no means restricted to theists.

I've got no problem with what you've said - but I wonder if you're one of those atheists who doesn't understand the important role that religion has played in the development of moral codes and right/wrong understanding. Also, I believe that religion has played a very strong role in the development of science, contrary to what most people think/believe.

Admittedly, while this guy is disgusting as all fark, growing up a boy, I remember being distinctly resentful of there being no available girls on the market as every single goddamn last one of them were openly, -openly- hunting down older cock. either college age guys or in many cases full grown men.

not saying it's -right-, I'm just saying the guy kinda has a point that sometimes it's the jailbait that's the agressor.

cookiefleck: 12349876: cookiefleck: I adore you, I really do.. but when people do the whole " All Catholics do this" it's the same as throwing the "all blacks do this"

You're right, because the ghetto gang bangers are just as influential and powerful in the black community as the Priests are to Catholics.

To some black folk, they are...

You can be black and not give a shiat about the gang bangers. You can't be Catholic and not give a shiat about the Priests.

I've always said closet gays never know what's going to give them away; same goes for closet pedophiles apparently. 


/not equating gays with pedophiles, just closet cases

Subby's headline should read; Catholic Priest, you know the rest.

Wow...religious orders have wrecked history by hiding ancient manuscripts, etc. Now they ruin whatever legitimimacy thay may have by farking boys...damn...

dbubb: Agent Smiths Laugh: But see, that's part of the problem with theists. Too many of them presume that if we don't subscribe to their particular myth and all it includes, we must surely be unable to behave in any moral manner.

This is by no means restricted to theists.

I've got no problem with what you've said - but I wonder if you're one of those atheists who doesn't understand the important role that religion has played in the development of moral codes and right/wrong understanding. Also, I believe that religion has played a very strong role in the development of science, contrary to what most people think/believe.

We had moral codes long before we invented religions. Hell, social animals know better than to constantly attack and injure other members of the pack/pride/whatever ebcause they know they'll screw themselves over if they do.

And what kind of moral code can you get from a book full of stories of entire cities, countries, and the entire world being mercilessly slaughtered for the slightest of transgressions? One story is about fifty children being murdered by bears because they called an old man "Baldy" and the guy got mad and asked God to do something and God conjured bears out of thin air to kill the children. Less a moral code than a rule by fear and threat of death.

thelonearranger: FTFA: "Well, it's not so hard to see - a kid looking for a father and didn't have his own - and they won't be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping but not having intercourse or anything like that..."

[dailypicksandflicks.com image 600x436]

/hot

Mike is cool, man. Don't bring him into this.

cookiefleck: I've said it before.. all FARK atheists seem really miserable. Like their life goal is to prove someone wrong.

We're not miserable because our life goal is to prove someone wrong. We're miserable because no matter how many times we prove people wrong, they stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALAICAN'THEARYOU!".

Keizer_Ghidorah: dbubb: Agent Smiths Laugh: But see, that's part of the problem with theists. Too many of them presume that if we don't subscribe to their particular myth and all it includes, we must surely be unable to behave in any moral manner.

This is by no means restricted to theists.

I've got no problem with what you've said - but I wonder if you're one of those atheists who doesn't understand the important role that religion has played in the development of moral codes and right/wrong understanding. Also, I believe that religion has played a very strong role in the development of science, contrary to what most people think/believe.

We had moral codes long before we invented religions. Hell, social animals know better than to constantly attack and injure other members of the pack/pride/whatever ebcause they know they'll screw themselves over if they do.

And what kind of moral code can you get from a book full of stories of entire cities, countries, and the entire world being mercilessly slaughtered for the slightest of transgressions? One story is about fifty children being murdered by bears because they called an old man "Baldy" and the guy got mad and asked God to do something and God conjured bears out of thin air to kill the children. Less a moral code than a rule by fear and threat of death.

Is that really all there is in the Bible? Is Christianity the only religion?

I understand your point but I think that you're overlooking important points of the Christian faith, for which I don't want to be an apologist.

Catholic church owns/runs NAMBLA?

cookiefleck: I've said it before.. all FARK atheists seem really miserable. Like their life goal is to prove someone wrong.

If we really are that way, it's better than living in constant fear of angering a bipolar sky wizard and constantly telling everyone they're going to be tortured brutally for all eternity if they don't join the particular flavor of cult you belong to.

This is like the "She was asking for it she was dressed like a slut" defense. Well I guess in this case it is more of "He was asking for it he was dressed like an alter boy."

notatrollorami: President Merkin Muffley: notatrollorami: ///Sequestered prison island for life or death, either way. For any true child predator.

Congratulations on increasing the number of child murders. Why do you hate children?

I understand the practical nature of that argument. It stands to reason that the worse the punishment for a given crime the greater the lengths a perpetrator will go to avoid getting caught. How then do we adjust the scales of justice? A night in the stockades with the townspeople jeering for kiddy diddling? Surely that would avoid any temptation the otherwise nice diddler might have to off the kid?

////Not actually a death penalty advocate because the system can't be trusted. Mostly I intended to express the notion that no child predator, if actually guilty, should ever have access to children again. Ever. First offense. It's an unchangeable predilection. But then I'm back to having to trust the system.

///Bad people on every side ruin everything for everyone.

It's a nice theory. Let me adjust it a little more for you:

Statistically, child molesters are likely to themselves have been the victims of molestation as children. That's one reason why they are so desperately hard to treat, even when they want help: Because the behavior has been set so early and deeply it takes years of dedicated therapy AND a genuine desire to change on the part of the predator. Not one or the other, but both.

So what we need to do is acknowledge this fact, first, and mandate intensive therapy for molesters who have indicated a real desire to change. Not optional or "They know the help is out there" but when they get caught they MUST have intensive, aggressive therapy, and probably while being incarcerated, It would need to be something between a mental hospital and a prison in that case. Follow that with monitored release over a period of years at least equal to the length of treatment.

The second thing that must be done is equally intensive and mandatory treatment for the victims. As children, they are more amenable to change, and yet right now, they get the same treatment as their offenders, ironically. "Let their parents take them home and get them help," knowing it is unlikely ever to happen. Instead, kids who are victims MUST receive treatment, on the public dime if necessary, and in their homes or a separate school location. This cannot be an option, or brushed aside with the idea that they're so young, they'll get over it. They won't, and a certain percentage will go on to commit the same kinds of crimes. (And the ones who don't offend will still carry the guilt and scars for the remainder of their lives)

Will this be difficult and costly? Yes. Will it infringe on the molesters' and victims' civil rights? Yes. Will it take many years to see results? Yes. But it is the ONLY thing that will stop child molesters short of execution and prevent future molesters from emerging. Otherwise, we will continue to replay the victimization/molestation cycle over and over again.

The My Little Pony Killer: Any Fark Christians here to speak out against this guy? No?

Well the quote in the article was bad enough, but when you read the whole interview that just comes across as horrible, creepy, and pedophilic. (Oh and did I mention lots of victim blaming?) Really the whole comment of sympathy for the pedophiles is just horrible.

As a Christian, yeah - fark him. Hell, even Jesus says fark him:

This is a direct quote from Luke 17:1-3: "Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. 2 It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3 So watch yourselves."



So yeah - even Jesus says fark that guy.

dbubb: Keizer_Ghidorah: dbubb: Agent Smiths Laugh: But see, that's part of the problem with theists. Too many of them presume that if we don't subscribe to their particular myth and all it includes, we must surely be unable to behave in any moral manner.

This is by no means restricted to theists.

I've got no problem with what you've said - but I wonder if you're one of those atheists who doesn't understand the important role that religion has played in the development of moral codes and right/wrong understanding. Also, I believe that religion has played a very strong role in the development of science, contrary to what most people think/believe.

We had moral codes long before we invented religions. Hell, social animals know better than to constantly attack and injure other members of the pack/pride/whatever ebcause they know they'll screw themselves over if they do.

And what kind of moral code can you get from a book full of stories of entire cities, countries, and the entire world being mercilessly slaughtered for the slightest of transgressions? One story is about fifty children being murdered by bears because they called an old man "Baldy" and the guy got mad and asked God to do something and God conjured bears out of thin air to kill the children. Less a moral code than a rule by fear and threat of death.

Is that really all there is in the Bible? Is Christianity the only religion?

I understand your point but I think that you're overlooking important points of the Christian faith, for which I don't want to be an apologist.

There's plenty in the Bible, most of which can be tossed out and the rest condensed to "Love and care for each other and don't be a dick". Makes it much easier to understand and much less able to be twisted and warped into a weapon against those you dislike.

We're talking about Catholics, not about Buddhists or the cult of Aphrodite, pay attention.

Like I said above, the most important part is "Love each other and don't be a dick". Stories of world-destroying floods, vengeful beings burning cities, blood sacrifices, and a future of overwhelming death and destruction aren't necessary to say "Love each other and don't be a dick".

cookiefleck: Rreal: Admittedly, while this guy is disgusting as all fark, growing up a boy, I remember being distinctly resentful of there being no available girls on the market as every single goddamn last one of them were openly, -openly- hunting down older cock. either college age guys or in many cases full grown men.

not saying it's -right-, I'm just saying the guy kinda has a point that sometimes it's the jailbait that's the agressor.


Maybe work on being more mature? The reason lots of girls go running, screaming towards older men is because young guys like you are still into game playing

dude, before you start flinging shiat like a monkey. this was twenty years ago, over half a lifetime ago, and I'm not a guy anymore

Tried to upload this earlier:

To Mr. Pedophile Apologist (Father Groeschel):

"If you go back 10 or 15 years ago..."

He sounds like he's trying to (and failing at) making a reference to the Good Old Ways, as other people have mentioned above. Except "10-15 years" isn't *that* long ago. That would be 1997-2002. So he's saying that, possibly after 9/11 or there about, people were still cool with raping kids? That attitudes change wildly during Bush's term, for no reason?


Usually, when you reference the Good Old Ways, you actually reference something *old*, like at least longer than a generation or two. 50 or 100 year range, minimum.

Why, depending on the state the incidents occurred in, it could be recent enough that the statute of limitations might not have expired yet...

Keizer_Ghidorah: dbubb: Keizer_Ghidorah: dbubb: Agent Smiths Laugh: But see, that's part of the problem with theists. Too many of them presume that if we don't subscribe to their particular myth and all it includes, we must surely be unable to behave in any moral manner.

This is by no means restricted to theists.

I've got no problem with what you've said - but I wonder if you're one of those atheists who doesn't understand the important role that religion has played in the development of moral codes and right/wrong understanding. Also, I believe that religion has played a very strong role in the development of science, contrary to what most people think/believe.

We had moral codes long before we invented religions. Hell, social animals know better than to constantly attack and injure other members of the pack/pride/whatever ebcause they know they'll screw themselves over if they do.

And what kind of moral code can you get from a book full of stories of entire cities, countries, and the entire world being mercilessly slaughtered for the slightest of transgressions? One story is about fifty children being murdered by bears because they called an old man "Baldy" and the guy got mad and asked God to do something and God conjured bears out of thin air to kill the children. Less a moral code than a rule by fear and threat of death.

Is that really all there is in the Bible? Is Christianity the only religion?

I understand your point but I think that you're overlooking important points of the Christian faith, for which I don't want to be an apologist.

There's plenty in the Bible, most of which can be tossed out and the rest condensed to "Love and care for each other and don't be a dick". Makes it much easier to understand and much less able to be twisted and warped into a weapon against those you dislike.

We're talking about Catholics, not about Buddhists or the cult of Aphrodite, pay attention.

Like I said above, the most important part is "Love each other and don't be a dick". S ...

The term Theist has been thrown around here quite a bit - pay attention.

Why don't you go for just "be excellent to each other?" That has kind of a catchy ring to it.

cookiefleck: I've said it before.. all FARK atheists seem really miserable. Like their life goal is to prove someone wrong.

Sounds like you are pretty selective in who you talk to and base your opinions on. Something I've noticed about Fark is that like attracts like. The extremist assholes all end up arguing with each other, and characterizing the "other side" as being the (similar to themselves) assholes they choose to talk to.

The Church needs to find a way to eliminate all of the gays from their ranks. On the other hand if they were to embrace their gayness then they would no longer be committing rape, instead they would be said to be pursuing twinks.

dbubb: Agent Smiths Laugh: But see, that's part of the problem with theists. Too many of them presume that if we don't subscribe to their particular myth and all it includes, we must surely be unable to behave in any moral manner.

This is by no means restricted to theists.

I've got no problem with what you've said - but I wonder if you're one of those atheists who doesn't understand the important role that religion has played in the development of moral codes and right/wrong understanding. Also, I believe that religion has played a very strong role in the development of science, contrary to what most people think/believe.

Here's the thing. None of those moral codes couldn't have been created without all the supernatural trappings involved. There are all social constructs invented by man for man to create functional societies. Problem with religion is all the baggage that comes with it that has been used not to enforce moral codes, but to tyrannize people well beyond the boundaries of any simple morality. Granted that's not the only problem with it, but most of the problems in one way or another come back to creating excuses to wield unreasonable power over other people.

See, that's always been the core purpose of organized religion. Power. People who fail to see that are willfully obtuse, tragically naive, or just simply ignorant of history.

But since no moral code requires supernatural thinking to be valid and conducive to civilization, then why bother tacking on the useless and potentially abusive cargo?

And while religion certainly has ties to philosophy, and philosophy was certainly the beginning of scientific thought, it is no longer needed. Superstition might have seeded the roots of rational thinking as mankind first tried to comprehend the workings of nature, it was certainly our first adolescent attempt at doing so, but we've grown beyond it and have blossomed into the tree of science and reason which actually get results.

See, I won't deny that religion did serve a function, but I state clearly that we have better tools now, and it has become obsolete, so much so that it now serves all too often as an impediment to progress rather than a catalyst.

Take for instance stem cell research. A possible panacea of medical knowledge that could ultimately save inestimable lives. Held back and fought time and again by theistic thinking and sentiment.

I would ask you what's better, using the research to find cures for disease, or allowing a family member to die of a possibly curable disease because "It's god's will."

"Pressed for clarification, the New York State-based religious leader explained that kids looking for father figures might be drawn to priests to fill a hole."

Whaaaaaaat? Poor wording, dude. Poor... poor wording. Not THAT hole.

Gyrfalcon: notatrollorami: President Merkin Muffley: notatrollorami: ///Sequestered prison island for life or death, either way. For any true child predator.

Congratulations on increasing the number of child murders. Why do you hate children?

I understand the practical nature of that argument. It stands to reason that the worse the punishment for a given crime the greater the lengths a perpetrator will go to avoid getting caught. How then do we adjust the scales of justice? A night in the stockades with the townspeople jeering for kiddy diddling? Surely that would avoid any temptation the otherwise nice diddler might have to off the kid?

////Not actually a death penalty advocate because the system can't be trusted. Mostly I intended to express the notion that no child predator, if actually guilty, should ever have access to children again. Ever. First offense. It's an unchangeable predilection. But then I'm back to having to trust the system.

///Bad people on every side ruin everything for everyone.

It's a nice theory. Let me adjust it a little more for you:

Statistically, child molesters are likely to themselves have been the victims of molestation as children. That's one reason why they are so desperately hard to treat, even when they want help: Because the behavior has been set so early and deeply it takes years of dedicated therapy AND a genuine desire to change on the part of the predator. Not one or the other, but both.

So what we need to do is acknowledge this fact, first, and mandate intensive therapy for molesters who have indicated a real desire to change. Not optional or "They know the help is out there" but when they get caught they MUST have intensive, aggressive therapy, and probably while being incarcerated, It would need to be something between a mental hospital and a prison in that case. Follow that with monitored release over a period of years at least equal to the length of treatment.

The second thing that must be done is equally intensive and mandatory treatment for the victims. As children, they are more amenable to change, and yet right now, they get the same treatment as their offenders, ironically. "Let their parents take them home and get them help," knowing it is unlikely ever to happen. Instead, kids who are victims MUST receive treatment, on the public dime if necessary, and in their homes or a separate school location. This cannot be an option, or brushed aside with the idea that they're so young, they'll get over it. They won't, and a certain percentage will go on to commit the same kinds of crimes. (And the ones who don't offend will still carry the guilt and scars for the remainder of their lives)

Will this be difficult and costly? Yes. Will it infringe on the molesters' and victims' civil rights? Yes. Will it take many years to see results? Yes. But it is the ONLY thing that will stop child molesters short of execution and prevent future molesters from emerging. Otherwise, we will continue to replay the victimization/molestation cycle over and over again.

On the one hand I wish I wasn't generally pecking out posts on a phone in bed so I could take the time to write well developed, thoughtful, eloquent responses like yours.

On the other hand you do it for me and I get to read it in the nice soothing shade of sunrise pink you've been assigned.

dbubb: Agent Smiths Laugh: But see, that's part of the problem with theists. Too many of them presume that if we don't subscribe to their particular myth and all it includes, we must surely be unable to behave in any moral manner.

This is by no means restricted to theists.

I've got no problem with what you've said - but I wonder if you're one of those atheists who doesn't understand the important role that religion has played in the development of moral codes and right/wrong understanding. Also, I believe that religion has played a very strong role in the development of science, contrary to what most people think/believe.

While religion undoubtedly influenced the development of human morality, I posit that it was neither necessary nor sufficient for it. Admittedly, this is untestable without godlike powers, but the very fact that morality can be rationally justified without resorting to religion is sufficient for me.

Religion probably did made it easier to impress moral memes upon those who weren't prone to rational inquiry. A strong person could try the same thing ("This is morally right because I said so, and if you don't like it I will beat you to death with a rock"), but strong people can be killed by stronger ones, and they eventually die in any case. The concept of an.invincible, immortal arbiter of morality watching your every move and waiting to punish you in a manner invisible to the living is much more effective--provided that you can convince people that it exists (see the aforementioned rock argument). So religion probably did serve as a tool for evolving complex morality (evolution doesn't care whether a meme is actually true), but like most things in evolution, the price for that tool is death and suffering. C'est la vie.

The My Little Pony Killer: St_Francis_P: The My Little Pony Killer: Any Fark Christians here to speak out against this guy? No?

Would you settle for an agnostic saint?

Good enough for me. I'm just noting that this is a really good thread for the usual "I'm a Christian, but this guy totally disgusts me" crowd to make an appearance.

I'm an atheist, and I don't give a damn. In the first place it is possible that "[in a] lot of the cases, the youngster - 14, 16, 18 - is the seducer." I seduced a few older men when I was a teenager; they weren't Catholic priests but then I moved in a very non-Catholic world. And whatever grave hormonal disorders some Farkers might suffer from, most of us guys stopped being little boys before we got to be "14. 16, [or] 18."

Should priests be mindful of their vows and not partake with a sexually developed person of either sex, regardless of who's the seducer? Yes, of course: vows, like other promises, should be kept whever possible; if you don't mean to keep it or can't try very hard to then don't make the vow. But I'm not going to get very upset about "abuse" of somebody who in most of the world is old enough to get married and in most cases is mature enough to knock females up.

If it's okay for your average "14, 16, 18" year guy old to consensually fark a buxom "hottie" teacher then it's also okay for him to consensually get it on with a Catholic priest. Even if the priest is male too.

If I were a girl, I would be throwing myself at priests. I dont see how what he said isnt true.

Agent Smiths Laugh: Agent Smiths Laugh

Ok, we're actually much closer than I first might have thougt.

cookiefleck: I've said it before.. all FARK atheists seem really miserable. Like their life goal is to prove someone wrong.

If and when theist's beliefs ceased having deleterious effects on atheists (and even other theists), I will have some sympathy for your argument. Even if that ever happened, though, many Fark atheists have some background in science and/or philosophy, and such folk are naturally inclined to seek truth (and, consequently, to correct falsehood).

runujhkj: Agent Smiths Laugh: runujhkj: Agent Smiths Laugh: runujhkj: Man, I hate atheists. They're so annoying, with all of their internet snark. How many people's feelings do they have to hurt before we start doing anything about them?

I know, we're such intolerable bastards when we use critical thinking and reason to argue you into a corner.

And it's SO MUCH FUN watching the theists squirm and contort.

Almost as much fun as a priest finds in watching an altar boy squirm and contort, I'd imagine.

Not really, because committing a crime against a child is very far removed from being able to exercise superior logic in a debate. 

I dunno, when I argue with a theist and they actually argue themselves into a corner instead of just using one of the dozens of circular arguments they use, that can definitely elicit a sexual thrill.

I...well...whatever floats your boat I guess. So long as the argument was consensual.

And sensual............(cough).......

namegoeshere:

Pressed for clarification, the New York State-based religious leader explained that kids looking for father figures might be drawn to priests to fill a hole.

THEY DIDN'T MEAN LITERALLY!

I'm sure some did.

"Moralistic" homophobes can be so silly.

cookiefleck: jso2897: cookiefleck: I've said it before.. all FARK atheists seem really miserable. Like their life goal is to prove someone wrong.

Sounds like you are pretty selective in who you talk to and base your opinions on. Something I've noticed about Fark is that like attracts like. The extremist assholes all end up arguing with each other, and characterizing the "other side" as being the (similar to themselves) assholes they choose to talk to.

You being human and not the grand poobah of knowledge should also understand there's another side to faith.

I have no opinions about what "sides" faith possesses. As far as I am concerned, you can believe whatever you want - and if you have the decency to keep it to yourself, and not try to force it on me, we'll get along famously.

You know, there is some fairly selective quoting going on -- the entire article is over here (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/father-benedict-groeschel-reflec ts-on-25-years-of-the-franciscan-friars-of/).

Main points with regards to the subject:

* Groeschel is focusing on the weak pedophiles and pederasts, not all of them. Yes, a weak guy COULD be "seduced" by flirtation. It doesn't diminish his culpability, and it sounds like Groeschel is just trying to point out that most of the guys who COME to counseling appear to the be "weakly go after 'em" as opposed to grooming sorts.

* He seems to be more focused on priests who chase after -girls-, and I'm getting the impression (based on comments about the ones that leave and get married) he's talking more about the mid to late teen girls. This ties into the part about statuatory rape and "the girl" not pressing the case.

I'm not sure what he's saying that is objectionable -- he's showing sympathy for the guys who do evil things. The Sandusky comment seemed more about the fact that OTHER folks knew about it and did nothing to stop or help him get out of the addiction. He could have phrase this far better, but it was a small question as part of a larger conversation.

Nothing excuses molestors, but if you spend a chunk of time counseling molestors and working with them, you will tend to see their weak human side as well as the monster side. Loving even those who do great evil to us and others has always been part of Christianity.

astroturd: If I were a girl, I would be throwing myself at priests. I dont see how what he said isnt true.

I've tried. They just mutter something about Jezebel and then ask if I have a younger brother.

Whatever happened to "be good to others and good shall come back?"

Oh, right, karma. Sorry for being so bad at being a non-heathen.

Why not try stop being assholes to each other? That'd be nice.

JerkyMeat: In other words, a typical republican.
.
.

Like the Kennedy's?

Yes, NYC and the entire North East is such a bastion of conservatism. Derp on my friend.