Honestly, the whole concept of tipping is ridiculous. Even when you buy a newspaper from a vending stand, someone has provided you service. The providing of service is inherent in doing business.
The ironic thing is that in many if not most fast food places like McDonalds and Jack in the Box, if they are even a little backed they will offer to bring your food out to your table when it is ready. This politely gets you out of their way so they can take the next order.
So, like you, I do tip at the normal places, but I have no illusions that it makes sense in restaurants or bars any more than it would make sense in a McDonalds.
You have obviously not seen some of the incredibly rude signs they put on the tip jars they put up around here. No doubt they started out thinking they were cute and funny, but they have moved well beyond that at this point.
The other point is to see if the loner with a laptop is actually impacting business in a negative way. On a Friday evening, I would guess that you wouldn't want a bunch of people taking up tables hanging out on their laptops not buying coffee. At 2pm on a Wednesday, having a half dozen people in your coffee shop sitting at tables that were just going to sit empty anyway might entice more people to come in. It is important to remember in these conversations that having someone sitting at a table only loses money if you are at or near capacity. Conversely, having a store that is always empty can also hurt business.
That is a fine post. I was going to point out that people showing up at coffee shops and not buying much if anything has been happening way longer than coffee shops have been offering internet access. Coffee shops are bars for people not wanting to drink liqueur. They have been set up that way for that last couple of decades. They are specifically built to encourage people to hang out for long periods of time. That's what putting in big fluffy couches and bookshelves filled with books will do.
The funniest part of the whole situation is that the moocher IS the coffee house demographic. Coffee house owners complaining about people hanging out and not buying stuff seems a lot like a bar owner who complains that people keep getting drunk at his establishment. Sure it would be great if every came in, plunked down their money, stayed long enough to make the place look popular, and then cleared the way for everyone else, but that isn't going to happen in bars, and it isn't going to happen in coffee shops. In either kind of place you will have to deal with the occasional person that gets out of control, the person that nurses his drink for hours, and even the occasional person that doesn't buy anything.
That tactic will not work for a large portion of the population. The existence of our school system means that airborne diseases will pass through large portions of the population. Particularly in winter months, you are taking virtually all of the minor population and packing them into tight quarters for long periods of time. That is without even factoring in the fact that school kids are unlikely to take the basic sanitary practices that you do. Sometimes they are not even allowed to.
So, your tactic might work for you, and if it does, I say keep it up, but unless you are prepared to take some drastic measures like shutting down the public school system, it won't work for most people. I don't get flue vaccines either. Mostly because at places I have worked, I have noticed a trend that the more people getting flue shots, the higher the rate of people with the flue. That and since I both telecommute and home school, it is really easy for me and my family to avoid people that are really sick.
I think you are giving too much credit to the 'unwashed masses'. I don't believe that they have woken up. I think they just can't get credit to keep spending the way they did. As soon as things start turning around, people will go back to their old wasteful ways. Worse yet, a surprisingly large portion of the population just don't know where their every I was looking at the Leaf on display at the CA State Fair a few weeks ago. I was asking the guy demonstrating the car some questions, and he told me that he couldn't figure how much it cost to drive per mile because "he wasn't an engineer". No doubt he may have been playing dumb since it turns out the LEAF's fuel costs ends up being the equivalent of a ~40mpg car. That is IF it actually performs to the numbers claimed. My 10 year old car gets better mileage than that.
I understand that he may have been playing dumb, but the fact that he wasn't just creating huge amounts of bad publicity by claiming that the vehicle was super environmentally friendly shows that the masses don't get much past the hand waving. A surprisingly large number of adults don't realize that electricity doesn't just appear.
I have known many women that followed that same path. They were generally sociopaths when they are young, and wanted the baby for selfish reasons. Some of them skip the bible thumping stage, but that seems to be a 50/50 mix. Just count yourself lucky. A sociopath ex-wife that ignores their kids is DRAMATICALLY better for you and your kids than a sociopath parent that sees personal benefit in using the kids.
Ironically enough, your explanation as to why you might fit the description in the 'study' also points out why the study is worth less than the paper it is printed on.
Your wife may not have changed at all. It may be just that her environment changed, and thus her completely consistent reactions to the new environment makes it look like she changed.
I am going to make a big assumption here, so please excuse me if I am wrong. I assume that your wife was previously fat. REALLY fat. I will also assume that she lost a HUGE amount of weight from that operation.
There is a common misconception that women are 'natural nurturers'. This isn't the case. Women (like men) have a tendency to be self serving. Making things about them. It is extremely common for that self serving attitude to be confused with being nurturing. This happens because women are generally given higher social status if they are 'good mothers' than if they are not. People look for all sorts of way to get personal gain. Frequently that gain is social status.
The more attractive a woman is, the more attention she will receive from men. The more money and goods that will be given to her, and all around the easier it will be for her to find things other than her kids to fulfill her sociopathic tendencies.
I don't know your wife, so I cannot say whether this is really true of her or not, but having a woman who goes from fat and centered on her kids to skinny and ignoring them fits plenty well in the hypothesis presented in the summary.
Complaints about spelling or the misuse of a word in an internet argument is simply the mediums way of say "I agree with everything you say, and have nothing more of value to add to the conversation."
Beyond that, it is incredibly stupid to try and use that particular fallacy, since (as you said) EVERYONE eventually makes a spelling or grammar mistake, and thus the complainer ends up showing themselves as a hypocrite.
I would rename it to Quantum Link and start advertising to C64 users. At the rate they are going it would be more profitable than their current path, and it would certainly bring them less ridicule.
The first is this one, a small local pest-control company Reno. If anyone can find anything objectionable about that site, definitely let me know!
I'm guess because Google's tools automatically ban companies called "Sier Rapist". I'm guessing that they probably ban all professional rapists. So, when you graduate with a masters in psychoanalysis and decide to open a practice as a therapist, you probably don't want to put that you are an ANALRAPIST on your business cards.
That is exactly what originally got me reading Slashdot. Eventually someone would always end up running the numbers. It's a shame that it has fallen out of fashion around here.
Your not entirely wrong. But there is more to the story than that. The culture of fee media is propagated by business. How often do you hear that something is "Free", only to find out that it really isn't. The classic example is the age old "Buy one, get one FREE!" Obviously to those of us that have a decent grasp of logic and language know that if you have to pay, it isn't free. We read it as "Two for the price of one." or "Half off when you buy two." A huge portion of the population doesn't get that though. They really think they are getting something for free. The common practice of businesses convincing the naive that they are getting things for free when they are not needs to stop if you ever want to get away from a culture that expects free stuff. The software industry is particularly bad about claiming things are free in an attempt to fool people.
Another problem is that copyright law has gotten so unbalanced that many people have simply gotten used to dismissing it. Even worse, big media will encourage people to dismiss copyright on one side, and and then cry about it on the other. A good example was a commercial that Nickelodeon (owned by Viacom) was running a few years back. They would run commercial showing 'cool kids' talking about what they do in their free time. They had a 10 to 12 year old girl, showing off her room. Her poster. Her bookshelf. Her CD wallet full of copied CDs...
Lower prices for older games would be a start. If I could buy new PS1 games at a dollar a pop, I would probably buy literally every one ever released. Certainly, a CD in a paper sleeve can be sold at a profit for $1. Unfortunately, copyright is more and more frequently NOT used to make sure that the author get paid enough to encourge further work, but instead is used as a means to make desired products unattainable. This in turn pushes people to dismiss copyright, and consider it to be a bad thing.
Actually, your link doesn't poke a hole in his argument, it supports it. Gates dropped out and went on to become incredibly wealthy. Gates did NOT complete their coursework. He did NOT get the professor interaction. He did not show competency in all of the areas the University claims are important.
Bringing Gates in to speak at Harvard is a little like some chick inviting an old boyfriend to her wedding to give a speech explaining to her husband how to perform sexual techniques that will please her in bed because the old boyfriend was hung so much larger than the groom that the groom will never be able to compete no matter how hard he tries. The people at Harvard that asked Gates to speak were just being jerks.
Even though it was surely unintentional, they were basically rubbing the graduates noses in the fact that they spent all that money and time for nothing if they want to be like this incredibly successful guy.
On top of that, it was incredibly unethical for Harvard to give him a degree, as it is clearly an attempt take credit for work they did not do. So, that should be the take away from their actions. Harvard shows their students how to cheat. OK, that may be a little harsh, but only just a little since they did cheat.
Maybe it was common knowledge to you because you were one of the but boys?
What enables the priests are asshats like you who make up shit and stand firm against all evidence to the contrary in order to express our disdain and hatred for the church
And there it is. If you believed for a second that that was true, you would be a sick human being for calling a rape victim names and telling them that it was their fault. Exactly the behavior that helped the priests to rape the victim in the first place.
If you don't believe it, then you are willing to lie to try to insult me by mocking the rape victims and then saying that I was one of them.
Either way, your attitude is still evidence of how the problem was allowed to go on for so long. No doubt attitudes like yours were even more common prior to the 70s when the Catholic church had much more influence in the US.
You are either wrong or lieing. You are trying to cherry pick numbers and then perform bad math to get a lower number than what really happened. Directly from the report:
The calculation of an overall percentage of priests in ministry was initially derived using information from the Diocesan Profiles for total numbers of priests and deacons subject to allegations compared to the total of those in ministry between 1950 and 2002. The surveys reported 75,694 diocesan priests and approximately 34,000 religious priests in ministry with 4,392 accused of abuse. If the total of the accused priests (4,392) is divided by the total of all priests in ministry between 1950 and 2002 (109,694), the result is 4%
The fact that even today, there are people like you who will throw insults and lie about what has been done is clear evidence that these numbers are low. As the very report that you keep quoting says that not only are sexual assaults under reported, but that these are just the cases that the Catholic Church admits to. It does not include any of the cases where the church swept the issue under the rug, or the priest completely got away with it.
Especially when you are claiming that the Church covered it up, endorsed it, and kept it quiet. You can't have it both ways, either it's true and common knowledge and the law failed to intervene making it the laws problem, or the covered it up and encourage it in which it wouldn't be common knowledge.
You are a sick puppy. Claiming that it is the laws problem because Catholic priests are rapists? Yes, the law not going in a making huge numbers of arrest of Catholic priests when it is common knowledge that they are rapists is bad. That does not take the blame away from the church. Your attempt to claim that the law gets involved in every crime that is well known to be happening is absurd.
Again. The report you quote from says that 4% of ALL priest working between 1950 and 2002 had accusations of sexual abuse. That is 1 in 25 as a best case scenario. That is atrocious, and when a group has an activity that common, people find out. You have not shown that it wasn't common knowledge. What you have done is shown that even when there is MASSIVE evidence and even confessions, people like you will still go into denial. It is people like you that acted as enablers for these priests.
First, this is pure conjecture that they are pretending. Fuck, do you have any proof? No, then why are you making assertions as if they are true without knowing they are?
No, I don't have physical evidence. It is possible that the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church are complete idiots so out of touch, that they have had no clue as to what was commonly known to have been going on in their own organization. I also have no proof that we have actually landed men on the moon. It COULD have been a hoax filmed in a studio. I also have no proof that the planet is more than 40 years old. Heck, I can't truly prove that we even exist. I have to take the evidence presented and come to a reasonable logical conclusion.
Second, it's only common knowledge after the fact when it's been exposed. No one has had any idea of how wide spread something like this was until the last 20 years or so when it's been highly publicized. Again, you are working completely from you imagination here.
No, it wasn't. It has been common knowledge since at least the 70's.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The John Jay report issued by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004, noted that between 1950 and 2002, 10,667 people made accusations against 4,392 roman catholic priests out of 109.5k priests in the US during that time. Of those ten thousand people, two thirds of the allegations happened after 1993 with one third happening between 2002 and 2003. This means that of the 10,667 people or allegations, 7111 of them came to light in just 11 years with half of them in the last 3 of those 11 years with the remaining 3555 people or allegations happening in the 43 years prior. and just for perspective, that's roughly 82 a year from 1950 to 1993 in an organization with over 41,406 diocesan and religious-order priests and 30,000 lay ministers currently operating in the US. Even if we neglect the lay ministers, that's something like one tenth of one percent of of the priests being accused of sexual misconduct up until 1993. And yes, 1993 is less then 30 years, in fact, it's about half the time.
Are you seriously trying to claim that because 11 year old boys didn't come forth in 1950 and tell people that old men had raped them in the butt that it didn't happen? Heck, in 1950, 30 year old women generally didn't come forward and make accusations if they were raped. Thinking that young boys would tell people is ludicrous. Even more so when the person that raped them was a priest. What do you think would happen to a boy even as recent as the 1980s if he came forward and said that a priest had had anal sex with him? Combine that with your attempt to twist the numbers. It is one tenth of one percent of all reported cases that were reported were reported each year between 1950 and 1993. That is a meaningless number. A more meaningful number is that approximately 4% of all priests between the years 1950 and 2002 were accused of molesting someone. That is 1 in 25.
After decades of my kid tripping over his shoe laces and breaking expensive vases again and again. Yes it would be my fault.
Look, you made your case perfectly clear. You think the Catholic Church has plausible deniablity. You think that pretending to be ignorant of a fact that is considered common knowledge absolves the Church as on organization of guilt. I don't know what hole you were living in, but at least for the last thirty years, it was well known that priests were molesting kids. Given your tone, it isn't surprising that you were in denial about it, and just chalked all of the jokes, innuendos, and accusations about it up to people "hating the church" back then too. You are what is known as an enabler.
Sure, I wasn't complaining about your post per se. I was just pondering how amusing the meme is given that reality is likely the opposite. HE may be the exception that really doesn't get laid.
And Vietnam wasn't a war, and neither was Korea. I cannot speak for before I was born, but I knew that kids were being molested by church officials since Paul VI. Certainly the Popes knew it was happening and continued to not only ignore the problem, but make policy that protected it. Growing up, calling someone an 'alter boy' was basically accusing them of getting buggered by old men. Priests molesting kids was an open secret. It does not take an official statement by an organization to make the organization responsible for it's actions. By your standards, there isn't, and never has been a Mafia. After all, they haven't made any official statements.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, the whole concept of tipping is ridiculous. Even when you buy a newspaper from a vending stand, someone has provided you service. The providing of service is inherent in doing business.
The ironic thing is that in many if not most fast food places like McDonalds and Jack in the Box, if they are even a little backed they will offer to bring your food out to your table when it is ready. This politely gets you out of their way so they can take the next order.
So, like you, I do tip at the normal places, but I have no illusions that it makes sense in restaurants or bars any more than it would make sense in a McDonalds.
You have obviously not seen some of the incredibly rude signs they put on the tip jars they put up around here. No doubt they started out thinking they were cute and funny, but they have moved well beyond that at this point.
The other point is to see if the loner with a laptop is actually impacting business in a negative way. On a Friday evening, I would guess that you wouldn't want a bunch of people taking up tables hanging out on their laptops not buying coffee. At 2pm on a Wednesday, having a half dozen people in your coffee shop sitting at tables that were just going to sit empty anyway might entice more people to come in. It is important to remember in these conversations that having someone sitting at a table only loses money if you are at or near capacity. Conversely, having a store that is always empty can also hurt business.
That is a fine post. I was going to point out that people showing up at coffee shops and not buying much if anything has been happening way longer than coffee shops have been offering internet access. Coffee shops are bars for people not wanting to drink liqueur. They have been set up that way for that last couple of decades. They are specifically built to encourage people to hang out for long periods of time. That's what putting in big fluffy couches and bookshelves filled with books will do.
The funniest part of the whole situation is that the moocher IS the coffee house demographic. Coffee house owners complaining about people hanging out and not buying stuff seems a lot like a bar owner who complains that people keep getting drunk at his establishment. Sure it would be great if every came in, plunked down their money, stayed long enough to make the place look popular, and then cleared the way for everyone else, but that isn't going to happen in bars, and it isn't going to happen in coffee shops. In either kind of place you will have to deal with the occasional person that gets out of control, the person that nurses his drink for hours, and even the occasional person that doesn't buy anything.
Don't forget chicken pox and shingles. The current marketing on those is that they are serious killers.
That tactic will not work for a large portion of the population. The existence of our school system means that airborne diseases will pass through large portions of the population. Particularly in winter months, you are taking virtually all of the minor population and packing them into tight quarters for long periods of time. That is without even factoring in the fact that school kids are unlikely to take the basic sanitary practices that you do. Sometimes they are not even allowed to.
So, your tactic might work for you, and if it does, I say keep it up, but unless you are prepared to take some drastic measures like shutting down the public school system, it won't work for most people. I don't get flue vaccines either. Mostly because at places I have worked, I have noticed a trend that the more people getting flue shots, the higher the rate of people with the flue. That and since I both telecommute and home school, it is really easy for me and my family to avoid people that are really sick.
I think you are giving too much credit to the 'unwashed masses'. I don't believe that they have woken up. I think they just can't get credit to keep spending the way they did. As soon as things start turning around, people will go back to their old wasteful ways. Worse yet, a surprisingly large portion of the population just don't know where their every I was looking at the Leaf on display at the CA State Fair a few weeks ago. I was asking the guy demonstrating the car some questions, and he told me that he couldn't figure how much it cost to drive per mile because "he wasn't an engineer". No doubt he may have been playing dumb since it turns out the LEAF's fuel costs ends up being the equivalent of a ~40mpg car. That is IF it actually performs to the numbers claimed. My 10 year old car gets better mileage than that.
I understand that he may have been playing dumb, but the fact that he wasn't just creating huge amounts of bad publicity by claiming that the vehicle was super environmentally friendly shows that the masses don't get much past the hand waving. A surprisingly large number of adults don't realize that electricity doesn't just appear.
I have known many women that followed that same path. They were generally sociopaths when they are young, and wanted the baby for selfish reasons. Some of them skip the bible thumping stage, but that seems to be a 50/50 mix. Just count yourself lucky. A sociopath ex-wife that ignores their kids is DRAMATICALLY better for you and your kids than a sociopath parent that sees personal benefit in using the kids.
Ironically enough, your explanation as to why you might fit the description in the 'study' also points out why the study is worth less than the paper it is printed on.
The question of whether people are shaped by nature or nurture is easy. The answer is "yes".
Your wife may not have changed at all. It may be just that her environment changed, and thus her completely consistent reactions to the new environment makes it look like she changed.
I am going to make a big assumption here, so please excuse me if I am wrong. I assume that your wife was previously fat. REALLY fat. I will also assume that she lost a HUGE amount of weight from that operation.
There is a common misconception that women are 'natural nurturers'. This isn't the case. Women (like men) have a tendency to be self serving. Making things about them. It is extremely common for that self serving attitude to be confused with being nurturing. This happens because women are generally given higher social status if they are 'good mothers' than if they are not. People look for all sorts of way to get personal gain. Frequently that gain is social status.
The more attractive a woman is, the more attention she will receive from men. The more money and goods that will be given to her, and all around the easier it will be for her to find things other than her kids to fulfill her sociopathic tendencies.
I don't know your wife, so I cannot say whether this is really true of her or not, but having a woman who goes from fat and centered on her kids to skinny and ignoring them fits plenty well in the hypothesis presented in the summary.
Then apparently what we need is Space Mormons. If they will colonize Utah, they just might succeed at colonizing Mars.
Complaints about spelling or the misuse of a word in an internet argument is simply the mediums way of say "I agree with everything you say, and have nothing more of value to add to the conversation."
Beyond that, it is incredibly stupid to try and use that particular fallacy, since (as you said) EVERYONE eventually makes a spelling or grammar mistake, and thus the complainer ends up showing themselves as a hypocrite.
So what would you do if you were running AOL?
I would rename it to Quantum Link and start advertising to C64 users. At the rate they are going it would be more profitable than their current path, and it would certainly bring them less ridicule.
The first is this one, a small local pest-control company Reno. If anyone can find anything objectionable about that site, definitely let me know!
I'm guess because Google's tools automatically ban companies called "Sier Rapist". I'm guessing that they probably ban all professional rapists. So, when you graduate with a masters in psychoanalysis and decide to open a practice as a therapist, you probably don't want to put that you are an ANALRAPIST on your business cards.
That is exactly what originally got me reading Slashdot. Eventually someone would always end up running the numbers. It's a shame that it has fallen out of fashion around here.
Your not entirely wrong. But there is more to the story than that. The culture of fee media is propagated by business. How often do you hear that something is "Free", only to find out that it really isn't. The classic example is the age old "Buy one, get one FREE!" Obviously to those of us that have a decent grasp of logic and language know that if you have to pay, it isn't free. We read it as "Two for the price of one." or "Half off when you buy two." A huge portion of the population doesn't get that though. They really think they are getting something for free. The common practice of businesses convincing the naive that they are getting things for free when they are not needs to stop if you ever want to get away from a culture that expects free stuff. The software industry is particularly bad about claiming things are free in an attempt to fool people.
Another problem is that copyright law has gotten so unbalanced that many people have simply gotten used to dismissing it. Even worse, big media will encourage people to dismiss copyright on one side, and and then cry about it on the other. A good example was a commercial that Nickelodeon (owned by Viacom) was running a few years back. They would run commercial showing 'cool kids' talking about what they do in their free time. They had a 10 to 12 year old girl, showing off her room. Her poster. Her bookshelf. Her CD wallet full of copied CDs...
Lower prices for older games would be a start. If I could buy new PS1 games at a dollar a pop, I would probably buy literally every one ever released. Certainly, a CD in a paper sleeve can be sold at a profit for $1. Unfortunately, copyright is more and more frequently NOT used to make sure that the author get paid enough to encourge further work, but instead is used as a means to make desired products unattainable. This in turn pushes people to dismiss copyright, and consider it to be a bad thing.
Actually, your link doesn't poke a hole in his argument, it supports it. Gates dropped out and went on to become incredibly wealthy. Gates did NOT complete their coursework. He did NOT get the professor interaction. He did not show competency in all of the areas the University claims are important.
Bringing Gates in to speak at Harvard is a little like some chick inviting an old boyfriend to her wedding to give a speech explaining to her husband how to perform sexual techniques that will please her in bed because the old boyfriend was hung so much larger than the groom that the groom will never be able to compete no matter how hard he tries. The people at Harvard that asked Gates to speak were just being jerks.
Even though it was surely unintentional, they were basically rubbing the graduates noses in the fact that they spent all that money and time for nothing if they want to be like this incredibly successful guy.
On top of that, it was incredibly unethical for Harvard to give him a degree, as it is clearly an attempt take credit for work they did not do. So, that should be the take away from their actions. Harvard shows their students how to cheat. OK, that may be a little harsh, but only just a little since they did cheat.
Maybe it was common knowledge to you because you were one of the but boys?
What enables the priests are asshats like you who make up shit and stand firm against all evidence to the contrary in order to express our disdain and hatred for the church
And there it is. If you believed for a second that that was true, you would be a sick human being for calling a rape victim names and telling them that it was their fault. Exactly the behavior that helped the priests to rape the victim in the first place.
If you don't believe it, then you are willing to lie to try to insult me by mocking the rape victims and then saying that I was one of them.
Either way, your attitude is still evidence of how the problem was allowed to go on for so long. No doubt attitudes like yours were even more common prior to the 70s when the Catholic church had much more influence in the US.
The calculation of an overall percentage of priests in ministry was initially derived using information from the Diocesan Profiles for total numbers of priests and deacons subject to allegations compared to the total of those in ministry between 1950 and 2002. The surveys reported 75,694 diocesan priests and approximately 34,000 religious priests in ministry with 4,392 accused of abuse. If the total of the accused priests (4,392) is divided by the total of all priests in ministry between 1950 and 2002 (109,694), the result is 4%
The fact that even today, there are people like you who will throw insults and lie about what has been done is clear evidence that these numbers are low. As the very report that you keep quoting says that not only are sexual assaults under reported, but that these are just the cases that the Catholic Church admits to. It does not include any of the cases where the church swept the issue under the rug, or the priest completely got away with it.
Especially when you are claiming that the Church covered it up, endorsed it, and kept it quiet. You can't have it both ways, either it's true and common knowledge and the law failed to intervene making it the laws problem, or the covered it up and encourage it in which it wouldn't be common knowledge.
You are a sick puppy. Claiming that it is the laws problem because Catholic priests are rapists? Yes, the law not going in a making huge numbers of arrest of Catholic priests when it is common knowledge that they are rapists is bad. That does not take the blame away from the church. Your attempt to claim that the law gets involved in every crime that is well known to be happening is absurd.
Again. The report you quote from says that 4% of ALL priest working between 1950 and 2002 had accusations of sexual abuse. That is 1 in 25 as a best case scenario. That is atrocious, and when a group has an activity that common, people find out. You have not shown that it wasn't common knowledge. What you have done is shown that even when there is MASSIVE evidence and even confessions, people like you will still go into denial. It is people like you that acted as enablers for these priests.
First, this is pure conjecture that they are pretending. Fuck, do you have any proof? No, then why are you making assertions as if they are true without knowing they are?
No, I don't have physical evidence. It is possible that the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church are complete idiots so out of touch, that they have had no clue as to what was commonly known to have been going on in their own organization. I also have no proof that we have actually landed men on the moon. It COULD have been a hoax filmed in a studio. I also have no proof that the planet is more than 40 years old. Heck, I can't truly prove that we even exist. I have to take the evidence presented and come to a reasonable logical conclusion.
Second, it's only common knowledge after the fact when it's been exposed. No one has had any idea of how wide spread something like this was until the last 20 years or so when it's been highly publicized. Again, you are working completely from you imagination here.
No, it wasn't. It has been common knowledge since at least the 70's.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The John Jay report issued by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004, noted that between 1950 and 2002, 10,667 people made accusations against 4,392 roman catholic priests out of 109.5k priests in the US during that time. Of those ten thousand people, two thirds of the allegations happened after 1993 with one third happening between 2002 and 2003. This means that of the 10,667 people or allegations, 7111 of them came to light in just 11 years with half of them in the last 3 of those 11 years with the remaining 3555 people or allegations happening in the 43 years prior. and just for perspective, that's roughly 82 a year from 1950 to 1993 in an organization with over 41,406 diocesan and religious-order priests and 30,000 lay ministers currently operating in the US. Even if we neglect the lay ministers, that's something like one tenth of one percent of of the priests being accused of sexual misconduct up until 1993. And yes, 1993 is less then 30 years, in fact, it's about half the time.
Are you seriously trying to claim that because 11 year old boys didn't come forth in 1950 and tell people that old men had raped them in the butt that it didn't happen? Heck, in 1950, 30 year old women generally didn't come forward and make accusations if they were raped. Thinking that young boys would tell people is ludicrous. Even more so when the person that raped them was a priest. What do you think would happen to a boy even as recent as the 1980s if he came forward and said that a priest had had anal sex with him? Combine that with your attempt to twist the numbers. It is one tenth of one percent of all reported cases that were reported were reported each year between 1950 and 1993. That is a meaningless number. A more meaningful number is that approximately 4% of all priests between the years 1950 and 2002 were accused of molesting someone. That is 1 in 25.
After decades of my kid tripping over his shoe laces and breaking expensive vases again and again. Yes it would be my fault.
Look, you made your case perfectly clear. You think the Catholic Church has plausible deniablity. You think that pretending to be ignorant of a fact that is considered common knowledge absolves the Church as on organization of guilt. I don't know what hole you were living in, but at least for the last thirty years, it was well known that priests were molesting kids. Given your tone, it isn't surprising that you were in denial about it, and just chalked all of the jokes, innuendos, and accusations about it up to people "hating the church" back then too. You are what is known as an enabler.
Sure, I wasn't complaining about your post per se. I was just pondering how amusing the meme is given that reality is likely the opposite. HE may be the exception that really doesn't get laid.
You have made your position absolutely clear. No doubt the "ignorant" popes took the same stance.
And Vietnam wasn't a war, and neither was Korea. I cannot speak for before I was born, but I knew that kids were being molested by church officials since Paul VI. Certainly the Popes knew it was happening and continued to not only ignore the problem, but make policy that protected it. Growing up, calling someone an 'alter boy' was basically accusing them of getting buggered by old men. Priests molesting kids was an open secret. It does not take an official statement by an organization to make the organization responsible for it's actions. By your standards, there isn't, and never has been a Mafia. After all, they haven't made any official statements.