Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic lol, this got deleted, why? fucking idiotic mods. church/subway or bus Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]Forever Angel[/m] at 3:45 am on Aug. 26, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]sophos[/m] at 5:40 am on Aug. 26, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]Forever Angel[/m] at 2:27 am on Aug. 26, 2008[quote]So you couldn't find those statistics anywhere either, huh? [/quote]Not my post; not my stats.[/quote]But you're defending them like they are. Why are [i]you[/i] so adamant about them being credible?  [/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post XxHeroHeroinexX Posted at 3:45 pm on Aug. 22, 2008 In the US in 2007: 135 cases of child abduction 635 CREDIBLE episodes of abuse by catholic priests and deacons. so, subway/bus/whatever you think could put your child in danger for abduction = 4 times safer than churches... and YES, i know i posted this already....but the other one i was "abusing anonymous" haha, so here it is again.

Replies MrIndigo Posted at 8:45 pm on Sep. 4, 2008 . Kitty Kiska Posted at 2:21 pm on Aug. 26, 2008 You can never predict the bus/subway/train abductions but if your child isent left alone with a priest then id say he/she is safe on that one King Kong Posted at 10:28 am on Aug. 26, 2008 1. please find a like to those statistics. 2.  School is evil as techers can molest children 3. clubs are evl as club membbers can molest children 3. frainds parents can molest children 4. they can be molested at home. so most cases of child mo;estion does not happen in the church fact.   Forever Angel Posted at 3:45 am on Aug. 26, 2008 Quote: from sophos at 5:40 am on Aug. 26, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:27 am on Aug. 26, 2008 So you couldn't find those statistics anywhere either, huh? Not my post; not my stats. But you're defending them like they are. Why are you so adamant about them being credible?   sophos Posted at 3:40 am on Aug. 26, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:27 am on Aug. 26, 2008 So you couldn't find those statistics anywhere either, huh? Not my post; not my stats. Forever Angel Posted at 2:27 am on Aug. 26, 2008 Quote: from sophos at 1:13 am on Aug. 26, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:24 am on Aug. 25, 2008 You're right, it's not rocket science. It's not science at all. And there is still no context. Could it just be a slight amount of bias on your part?   Find the source showing these "CREDIBLE" claims, please. It may indeed not be science, but the simple logic and grammar is obviously still too complex for your infantile grasp. Go ahead, and research yourself silly; the point is lost on you. Stop making a federal case out of everything that doesn't rub you in the right way. Your sensitivity to such topics only places question on your faith; which, by the way, already seems shaky. So you couldn't find those statistics anywhere either, huh? sophos Posted at 11:13 pm on Aug. 25, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:24 am on Aug. 25, 2008 You're right, it's not rocket science. It's not science at all. And there is still no context. Could it just be a slight amount of bias on your part? Find the source showing these "CREDIBLE" claims, please. It may indeed not be science, but the simple logic and grammar is obviously still too complex for your infantile grasp. Go ahead, and research yourself silly; the point is lost on you. Stop making a federal case out of everything that doesn't rub you in the right way. Your sensitivity to such topics only places question on your faith; which, by the way, already seems shaky. willz Posted at 11:10 pm on Aug. 25, 2008 The thing that annoys me is that people (americans especially) stereotype Muslims as terrorists while a much higher proportion of catholic priests are pedophiles compared to the total numbers. So it is more accurate to say priests are pedophiles than it is to say muslims are terrorists. Forever Angel Posted at 10:24 am on Aug. 25, 2008 Quote: from sophos at 11:41 am on Aug. 25, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 12:14 am on Aug. 26, 2008 ...there is no source to verify this "perfectly sound claim". How the simple complicate the simple. Read the OP, again. It's not rocket science.   Quote: from XxHeroHeroinexX at 6:45 am on Aug. 23, 2008 In the US in 2007:   135 cases of child abduction   635 CREDIBLE episodes of abuse by catholic priests and deacons.       so, subway/bus/whatever you think could put your child in danger for abduction = 4 times safer than churches... You're right, it's not rocket science. It's not science at all. And there is still no context. Could it just be a slight amount of bias on your part? Find the source showing these "CREDIBLE" claims, please. sophos Posted at 9:41 am on Aug. 25, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 12:14 am on Aug. 26, 2008 ...there is no source to verify this "perfectly sound claim". How the simple complicate the simple. Read the OP, again. It's not rocket science. Quote: from XxHeroHeroinexX at 6:45 am on Aug. 23, 2008 In the US in 2007: 135 cases of child abduction 635 CREDIBLE episodes of abuse by catholic priests and deacons.   so, subway/bus/whatever you think could put your child in danger for abduction = 4 times safer than churches... Forever Angel Posted at 9:14 am on Aug. 25, 2008 Quote: from sophos at 11:44 pm on Aug. 24, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:09 am on Aug. 24, 2008 There is no context in the OP, only numbers. Statistics without context are worthless. In fact they can be worse than worthless if used in misleading fashion, as is done here. No context in the OP? What ignorant gibberish. The contextual argument that the OP was making is that it is four times more likely to get sexually abused in churches than it is to get abducted. If the provided statistics hold true, there is nothing misleading about the claim. It is a comparison purely between the two. Worse than worthless is slamming a perfectly sound claim by arguing unrelated issues, due to poor contextual comprehension; and perhaps just a hint of religious bias. Another of your intelligent responses. One, there is no source to verify this "perfectly sound claim". (And your 'clarification' of this claim is even worse, as you make no distinction at all between Catholic priests and 'church'.) Two, there is no description of how these abductions may have occurred, yet the implication is that the majority resulted from riding a subway or bus. So tell me, what is the context that makes this 'perfectly sound claim' so credible? And as far as bias, the OP is biased against 'the church' and so are you. sophos Posted at 9:44 pm on Aug. 24, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:09 am on Aug. 24, 2008 There is no context in the OP, only numbers. Statistics without context are worthless. In fact they can be worse than worthless if used in misleading fashion, as is done here. No context in the OP? What ignorant gibberish. The contextual argument that the OP was making is that it is four times more likely to get sexually abused in churches than it is to get abducted. If the provided statistics hold true, there is nothing misleading about the claim. It is a comparison purely between the two. Worse than worthless is slamming a perfectly sound claim by arguing unrelated issues, due to poor contextual comprehension; and perhaps just a hint of religious bias. Forever Angel Posted at 8:09 am on Aug. 24, 2008 Quote: from sophos at 11:03 pm on Aug. 23, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 9:59 am on Aug. 23, 2008 Quote: from sophos at 8:05 am on Aug. 23, 2008 Pretty sure that the OP was meant as a jab at the church. Most assuredly it was, but as you can see, it fails. Not in the context of the OP, which was drawing a comparison only between the two. Quote: from XxHeroHeroinexX at 3:45 pm on Aug. 22, 2008 In the US in 2007: 135 cases of child abduction 635 CREDIBLE episodes of abuse by catholic priests and deacons.   so, subway/bus/whatever you think could put your child in danger for abduction = 4 times safer than churches... There is no context in the OP, only numbers. Statistics without context are worthless. In fact they can be worse than worthless if used in misleading fashion, as is done here. sophos Posted at 9:03 pm on Aug. 23, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 9:59 am on Aug. 23, 2008 Quote: from sophos at 8:05 am on Aug. 23, 2008 Pretty sure that the OP was meant as a jab at the church. Most assuredly it was, but as you can see, it fails. Not in the context of the OP, which was drawing a comparison only between the two. Quote: from XxHeroHeroinexX at 3:45 pm on Aug. 22, 2008 In the US in 2007: 135 cases of child abduction 635 CREDIBLE episodes of abuse by catholic priests and deacons. so, subway/bus/whatever you think could put your child in danger for abduction = 4 times safer than churches... Wilder Posted at 10:17 am on Aug. 23, 2008 All of your posts are terrible. so, subway/bus/whatever you think could put your child in danger for abduction = 4 times safer than churches... You cannot make this inference. Consider how many children are left unattended at church vs. how many children are left unattended somewhere where they are obviously at high risk to be abducted. This quite obviously impacts instances of abduction. It's not that churches are more dangerous, it's that people let their guard down around them more. Most recent 15 of 36 previous replies displayed.