mention of the Catholic Church's cover-up and abetting of child rape at every opportunity doesn't make those little boys any less raped. But feel free to keep trying to make the issue about "context" if it comforts you in your state of denial.

Is an excellent example of the logical fallacy of "The Red Herring". It has nothing to do with the Vatican stance on gun control.

I didn't bring up the pedophilia "mess" in this thread, now did I? And I suppose if it had been you or your child who had been ass-raped multiple times by a priest whose superiors knew he was doing it and did nothing to stop him, you might think it was something other than a "mess".

And despite your cute little link and others, the so-called "red herring" is not a logical fallacy. It is not an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises or, in fact, an argument in any form. If you want to consider it an unfair rhetorical tactic, you might have a shaky case, but in this instance, pointing out the Catholic Church's lack of right or competence to dictate morality, based on past egregious failures in that area, is hardly irrelevant.

Nor, apparently did you go to the "cute little link". The Red Herring IS a logical fallacy, and it was usedby whoever did bring up pedophilia.

If you want to consider it an unfair rhetorical tactic, you might have a shaky case, but in this instance, pointing out the Catholic Church's lack of right or competence to dictate morality, based on past egregious failures in that area, is hardly irrelevant.

A website said it was so..therefore it must be true.

What was that you were saying about logical fallacies?

And I was making no argument or conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of gun control, now was I? Only commenting that the Catholic Church supporting something on moral grounds, or citing their support as moral authority for anything..is rather rich....another logical fallacy, BTW, in case you hadn't noticed.

Both the Red Herring and the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque are well known fallacies of long standing. I directed you to that website so that you could correct your lack of knowledge on the subject.

And I was making no argument or conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of gun control, now was I? Only commenting that the Catholic Church supporting something on moral grounds, or citing their support as moral authority for anything..is rather rich....another logical fallacy, BTW, in case you hadn't noticed.

Last edited Wed Jan 23, 2013, 07:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's how it describes Ad Hominem Tu Quoque:

Person A makes claim X.

Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.

Therefore X is false.

In this case, what is the truth claim "X" made by the Catholic Church?

Quote where I've said or implied that the Catholic Church's "actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X."

Quote where I have said, concluded or implied that Claim X is false.

Then tell me again how any of this qualifies as what you maintain.

And that is the claim you are making. It may not be a Tu Quoque, but it certainly is an Ad Hominem (and a Red Herring).

You failed to answer any of those points. Miserably.

Just above you said my post was "an excellent example of the logical fallacy of the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque." And now you're saying "It may not be a Tu Quoque"?? WTF? After accusing ME of not being familiar with logic?

Forgive me if I file you away under "Doesn't Have a Clue what the Fuck They're Talking About and Should Never be Taken Seriously Again"

Face it, you used a logical fallacy, and your response is to quibble about which one.

THAT'S pathetic. And I have not been taking you seriously for ages, given your bigoted hatred of religion and your use of illogic in your arguments.

"Excellent example"? Or "moving the goalposts"?

You pointed me to a totally authoritative website on that logical fallacy, which listed its specific characteristics. When asked to specify how what I had said met those criteria, you failed. You couldn't even make an attempt. You totally, utterly, pathetically FAILED.

Apparently this is YOUR idea of logic:

Person A claims X is true

Person A is asked to back up his claim and can't

Person A claims X is true anyway

We're done here....you are an utter waste of time.

Which does not change the fact that your argument was fallacious.

But then, I don't expect you to be honest in your posts. As you say, we are done here.

If the argument were "The Vatican supports gun control, but covers for pedophile priests, so its position on gun control is invalid", then you would be right to call it fallacious.

However, if the argument is "The Vatican supports gun control, but covers for pedophile priests, so its position on protecting children is inherently hypocritical", then the argument is not fallacious.

Simple logic.

Not fallacious phrased that way, hypocrisy is a bit of phallacy itself, as it does not necessarily negate the position nor the sunstance of an argument.

Consider Al Gore. He speaks out against global warming, but has a carbon footprint the size of a spinosaurus. It doesn't mean his points aren't valid, nor that they aren't urgent and require action.

... then there's no problem.

The contention here is not whether the Vatican is doing the right thing by supporting gun control. I think we can all agree that they are. What has some of us going off the rails, however, is the praise the Vatican is receiving. Frankly, they don't deserve it. Thus explains the not-too-subtle reminder that the man in the gold robes and the big hat is still aiding and abetting pedophiles and actively campaigning against marriage equality.

I have to admit, as a due-paying member of protect.org (look it up) and volunteer Big Brother, I find your vamping on "child rape" to be rather meretricious. Sexual abuse of minors is a serious issue, and when I look at the number of cases filed annually that have nothing to do with the Catholic Church that receive no attention or interest from politicians on either side of the aisle (not to mention the media), I have to wonder if people like you really care at all about the welfare of children or dwell on this issue solely because it was a religious institution that was involved? And, as I've dealt with people of your position before, no, I'm not defending, remotely, the actions taken by the Church in these matters, but the issue is far far larger than most people seem to be aware.

Besides, I thought this was a thread about gun control?

And yes, lots of children are raped and molested by people other than priests. But how many organizations can you name that systematically, at the highest levels, for decades, in countries all over the world, covered up hundreds, if not thousands of instances of child rape, protected the perpetrators from punishment or even discovery, and abetted them in gaining access to new victims? And how many of those organizations (presuming you can name any to begin with) also arrogantly presume to be able to dictate moral behavior to the whole human race and attempt to deny human dignity and legal rights based on their "moral authority" from "god"?

So sorry to "vamp" on the issue of child rape, btw. I realize many people would like to whitewash what the Catholic Church has done, or to deflect from it by the tired old "Look, other people do it too" argument, but I just can't quite bring myself. If I could speak up for every child who's ever been raped, molested or abused, or protect every one that might be, I would, but I do what I can (and it's not confined to this site) so why you're pointing that finger is a mystery.

And if you wanted this to be a thread about gun control (the first word of which was "Vatican", btw), you were free to leave it that way, rather than continue on the subject of child rape, which I didn't introduce here in any case.

How many organizations? I would say hundreds, probably thousands. Of course, not all organizations are centrally located/controlled like the Catholic Church, so their effectiveness varied. But any institution, religious or secular, when faced with a crisis of that nature, seems to instinctively go into CYA mode. I'm not just talking about the tabloidish cases, like Hollywood embracing Roman Polanski as being a misunderstood individual.

Why do I say this? Simple, look at the data. Here's an example: In New York, there was, until a few years ago, an "Incest Loophole" in the laws. Essentially, it boiled down to this: You abuse your neighbor's daughter, you're a sexual fiend who needs to go to prison. If you abuse your own, you're just a troubled person in need of help. Parents who abused their children were given the ability to plea down to "incest," which is a very different crime than sexual abuse. They often received no prison time, mandatory counseling and, how's this for justice, would at times be allowed to maintain custody of their children, provided they sought "help."

There are still states that have such exemptions.

There was also the report, in the New York Times, that conservative rag, which noted that some public schools in New York were doing, basically, what the Catholic Church was doing when it found its employees abusing the minors in their care: Covering it up, transferring the adults and not bothering to tell anyone in the new school why. The Los Angeles PSS has had similar "problems."

We, as a culture, do not protect our young. The Catholic Church scandal should have served as a reminder, but I encounter far too many people who seem to think it unique.

And clearly you missed the ending of my post, where I insist that their behavior is not excused simply because it's not at all uncommon. I hate to repeat myself, but it seems I must: I'm not defending, remotely, the actions taken by the Church in these matters, but the issue is far far larger than most people seem to be aware.

So, to rephrase your comments, I realize many people don't truly care about the victims of child abuse, but merely allow their intense prejudice towards religious institutions to feign concern and distress over such issues when it involves those groups.

That's about as accurate a description of you as your comments were of me. You want to talk to me? Fine, talk to me, not some amalgam of the pathetic apologists that have popped up in the wake of scandal.

Ok...name five specific organizations that fit these criteria:

They have 1. systematically, 2. at the highest levels, 3. for decades, 4.in countries all over the world, 5.covered up hundreds, if not thousands of instances of child rape, 6. protected the perpetrators from punishment or even discovery, 7.abetted them in gaining access to new victims 8. arrogantly presume to be able to dictate moral behavior to the whole human race and 9. attempt to deny human dignity and legal rights based on their "moral authority" from "god"?

When you can't name any, and start backpedaling and moving the goalposts on your original claim of "hundreds, maybe thousands" then maybe you'll understand why the Catholic Church merits special attention on this issue.

And as I acknowledged in my very first line that this is a larger problem than the Catholic Church, why you would keep harping on that point is a mystery. I just happen to be focusing on that aspect of it, since this is the religion board and not the public school board, and since the Vatican and its competence on moral issues is the subject of this thread.

And yes, I am prejudiced against fundamentally homophobic and misogynistic organizations that seek to deny people fundamental rights and human dignity. Aren't you?

Insist that organizations fit those particular criteria, all nine of them, you're moving the goalposts a bit yourself, as you're essentially breaking down the Church's behavior into nine bullet points, and, particularly with the last two, creating a paradigm unique to them.

How about this: Did the Catholic Church create laws making it legal for a convicted child abuser to retain custody of the victim, like the state of New York did (and many other states with "incest loopholes) are still doing?

No, but you know what, regardless of the methods or the details, both organizations allowed for the abuse of minors to go unpunished and, in some circumstances, created situations in which the abuse would continue. That is what I care about. Did the legal system never arrogantly presume to be able to dictate moral behavior to the whole human race? Do not care.

When I say this issue is bigger, I don't just mean larger in size.

But, again, what has the Vatican's stance on gun control to do with the abuse scandal? You sound like those Repulicans who insist that because of Obama's use of drones, he has no right to talk about gun violence.

No, I tend to eschew prejudices, as people are individuals, and while we can talk with some accuracy about groups, the persons that make up collectives are what interest me. Sometimes locks require different keys. I also find it easier to convince someone by talking with them rather than shouting at them.

I listed all nine of those criteria in my post 18 above, and challenged you to name organizations that fit them. You read them (I assume) and responded that there were "hundreds, maybe thousands". I challenged you to name just 5 of those "hundreds, maybe thousands", and reiterated exactly the same criteria. Nothing was moved. But now the predicted backpedaling has commenced, and you're acknowledging that those criteria fit only one (not "hundreds, maybe thousands&quot organization.

Well, guess what? That's the point. That's why the Catholic Church warrants being singled out on this issue, even though they're not the only organization under whose auspices child rape has occurred. And I haven't said anything about being prejudiced against individual Catholics, now have I? Just the organization, the influence IT tries to wield, and the homophobic and misogynistic policies IT practices. Maybe the individuals interest you, but ignoring the organization or not taking a stand against its many abuses won't make those abuses go away.

I'm afraid you're dwelling on those criteria, and as I mentioned, I really don't care about any points beyond a callous apathy towards child abuse. You are absolutely right that the courts of the state of New York did not engage in all nine of your criteria, but I don't think that makes their actions any more or less appalling in allowing abusers to not only receive slight punishment but in some cases returned the victims to the custody of the criminal. All, by the way, in a manner that was perfectly legal!

The Catholic Church itself is unique as a religious institution, so it's not surprising it's transgressions should allow one to create (in this case) nine particular criteria for judgment. I don't feel that necessarily means they should be singled out over say, the educational or legal systems. I'd rather we, as a society, deal with the entire octopus than one tentacle.

And as this thread is about gun control, I'd also rather deal with the specifics of their claims about that issue, and the substance of their arguments, than insist that their handling of the sexual abuse crisis, disgusting as it was, somehow negates their points on the current matter. Hypocrisy is such a lazy argument.

That's the perfect word.

You will find that there are posters to this group who will blame thr Catholic Church if their peanut butter and jelly sandwich falls sticky side down. It's spinal reflex by now.

would be proud.

they are doing the right thing?

Seriously, what purpose does that serve you?

slinking.

However, I'm with them 100% on this issue. Guns need to be better regulated in this country. Otherwise, more Sandy Hooks will keep occurring.