Homophopic graffiti in Bray.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

No it would be entirely wrong and incorrect as backed up by loads of studies. Those who engage in such abuse don't tend to have such a clearly defined orientation. The poster has made the claim before but it remains untrue.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026962/

Am I missing something here? That study seems to say that child abuse in the Catholic church IS related to homosexuality:

This article discusses why the studies used to support the view of the abuse of minors as being not related to homosexuality are not applicable to the problem of clergy childhood sexual abuse. The data in the John Jay reports strongly suggests that homosexual abuse of adolescent males is at the heart of the crisis.

The study seems to be saying that in wider society, there isn’t a link between homosexuality and child abuse but that in the church, there is? That’s from a cursory glance of the abstract, mind, but it doesn’t seem to back up what you are saying.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One of the worst parts of discussions these days seem to be that if someone disagrees with you, even remotely, they are immediately classed as "far" right/left.

The amount of times I have been labelled as "far-right" for disagreeing with left leaning opinions is astounding.

But along with other insults and descriptions, it's quickly losing its meaning and impact through misuse and overuse.

You are 100% right.

Collie D

Brian? wrote: »

You are 100% right.

Or left

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Am I missing something here? That study seems to say that child abuse in the Catholic church IS related to homosexuality:



The study seems to be saying that in wider society, there isn’t a link between homosexuality and child abuse but that in the church, there is? That’s from a cursory glance of the abstract, mind, but it doesn’t seem to back up what you are saying.

Apologies, that doesn't appear to be the actual John Jay report. This would be it. It would be classified as definitive.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2011/05_06/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjN4Nv_u5_rAhU2QhUIHRzmCKUQFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw1RRPiCldc8LVv5CUXJJJVT&cshid=1597572187982


It's hard as feck to find it, confused identity factored in but homosexuality did not. It didn't find a higher likelihood to abuse among those who identified as gay.

Effects

Parabellum9 wrote: »

and that all lives matter is not racist as you claimed but a perfectly valid statement.

It's a valid statement for a racist to make.

ExMachina1000

Effects wrote: »

It's a valid statement for a racist to make.

All lives do matter. Colour is irrelevant

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

Hermann Kelly, Justin Barrett both rather homophobic as well... Gemma also homophobic. Justin famously blamed paedophilia in the church on gay people. Kelly wrote a book attacking a child sex abuse victim. But suddenly they develop concern? The protest was a mix of homophobia and the Irish far right trying to draw attention to themselves.

I disagree with Tatchell's remarks and view them as pretty poorly informed. I don't think he's a disgusting human being, I view him as ill informed on the topic and highly insensitive. However he has also don't plenty of activism that has been beneficial for human rights and he is recognised for this for good reason.

By your logic, Theresa May should have gotten a similar protest as she met him in Downing Street and praised his work on human rights.

I also view O'Gorman's response to it as completely reasonable, care to explain why you claimed that nobody was pushing the maps conspiracies on the site? Plenty of posters made insinuations. Plenty of those protesters were too.... Also who exactly did that protest want to lynch since they weren't protesting any actual paedophile?

He said a 9 year old could enjoy sex with an adult, I'd say thats a bit more than being poorly informed.

The guys a weirdo and its amazing you are twisting yourself up in knots to make him seem like a reasonable person.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

He said a 9 year old could enjoy sex with an adult, I'd say thats a but more than being poorly informed.

The guys a weirdo and its amazing you are twisting yourself up in knots to make him seem like a reasonable person.

Did I condone his remarks somewhere? I don't agree with them in the slightest and think they're pretty ****ed. I'm still okay with recognising that this isn't the entirety of what he's done in life.

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

Did I condone his remarks somewhere? I don't agree with them in the slightest and think they're pretty ****ed. I'm still okay with recognising that this isn't the entirety of what he's done in life.

You said he was poorly informed, maybe you would consider re phrasing that statement.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Did I condone his remarks somewhere? I don't agree with them in the slightest and think they're pretty ****ed. I'm still okay with recognising that this isn't the entirety of what he's done in life.

Apart from the alleged kiddy fiddling which I do not agree with, Jimmy Saville did some sterling charity work and should be recognised for it.

Eric Cartman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did I condone his remarks somewhere? I don't agree with them in the slightest and think they're pretty ****ed. I'm still okay with recognising that this isn't the entirety of what he's done in life.

I think condoning adults having sex with children is a bad enough offence to condemn everything done.

Nobody says ‘jimmy saville gave a load of money to charity , having sex with kids wasnt the entirety of what he dod with hos life’

It feels to me like youre just issuing the smallest amount of cirticism you can against tatchell because it would pain you too much to admit people you don’t like are right about the guy.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nobody says ‘jimmy saville gave a load of money to charity , having sex with kids wasnt the entirety of what he dod with hos life’

Deleted User wrote: »

Apart from the alleged kiddy fiddling which I do not agree with, Jimmy Saville did some sterling charity work and should be recognised for it.

:o:o

ExMachina1000

He may have harboured these kind of thoughts and opinions throughout his life. Absolutely disgusting if so.

Paedophiles and people who condone this type of behaviour should be removed from society.

Sex offenders should be tagged and people who live in the same communities should be warned of their presence.

I know nothing about this peter thachell individual but after hearing that I don't need to know anything else about the man.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Apart from the alleged kiddy fiddling which I do not agree with, Jimmy Saville did some sterling charity work and should be recognised for it.

Except Tatchell is not a paedophile... So that would be a substantial difference. Dawkins has made similarly awful remarks as well btw.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Except Tatchell is not a paedophile... So that would be a substantial difference. Dawkins has made similarly awful remarks as well btw.

Now then now then, innocent until proven guilty and all that malarkey.

Jim never was charged with anything.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Now then now then, innocent until proven guilty and all that malarkey.

Jim never was charged with anything.

So you're now inventing crimes that haven't even been alleged? Best of luck with that. Not exactly a great sign of you being able to argue a point.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

So you're now inventing crimes that haven't even been alleged? Best of luck with that.

I am not inventing anything whatsoever.

I don't view Tatchell as a hero, I'm straight. I do tend to view people in terms of the entirety of their work. But this appears to be lost on certain posters. Anyway, I've made my point.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Has Tatchell every actially been convicted or accused of pedophilia?

I mean, I can he definitely comes across as having some contemptable viewpoints, but that doesn't make someone a pedophile.

skooterblue2

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Has Tatchell every actially been convicted or accused of pedophilia?

I mean, I can he definitely comes across as having some contemptable viewpoints, but that doesn't make someone a pedophile.

You dont wave a flag for something that is not in your interest. This is a guy who probably insulates himself well with firewalls and proxy servers. I know of someone like him, recruits patsis to do the dirty stuff on their computers and copies over onto his external HD. Holidays in third world countries if something goes wrong they can pay off the local cops.

IF there was anything there, Amethyest would have targeted him and the people around him and cracked open his ring.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You dont wave a flag for something that is not in your interest. This is a guy who probably insulates himself well with firewalls and proxy servers. I know of someone like him, recruits patsis to do the dirty stuff on their computers and copies over onto his external HD. Holidays in third world countries if something goes wrong they can pay off the local cops.

IF there was anything there, Amethyest would have targeted him and the people around him and cracked open his ring.

So "no" then.

skooterblue2

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So "no" then.

Do you advocate for anything that is not in your personal interest?

You have to be asking some very deep searching questions otherwise.

Learn how the master Pedo operates, he rarely ever gets caught. You would be better off targeting the weakest link around him.

Brian?

Anthony Patch wrote: »

Nah. You're defending a pedo activist. Seriously, look in the mirror and get a grip.

What’s a pedo activist? Someone who’s a know activist and also a pedo? Or someone who campaigns to legalise paedophilia ?

skooterblue2

Anthony Patch wrote: »

Someone who defends pedophiles, promotes pedophilia, wants to legalise pedophilia etc.

Once again, you don't stick your neck out for something not in your own interest.

Brian?

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Do you advocate for anything that is not in your personal interest?

You have to be asking some very deep searching questions otherwise.

Learn how the master Pedo operates, he rarely ever gets caught. You would be better off targeting the weakest link around him.

I advocate for plenty of things that definitely aren’t in my interest personally. Trans rights, gay rights, increased taxation on the rich and many more.

So so many people. Have you read Warren Buffet’s views on taxation? Definitely not in his best interest.

Brian?

Anthony Patch wrote: »

Someone who defends pedophiles, promotes pedophilia, wants to legalise pedophilia etc.

And does yer man do these things?

Brian?

Anthony Patch wrote: »

From Wikipedia:

Tatchell has written an obituary in The Independent for Paedophile Information Exchange founder Ian Dunn,[106] as well as an essay for a pro-paedophile activist and Paedophile Information Exchange member Warren Middleton in the book "Betrayal of Youth (BOY)
In 1997 Tatchell wrote a letter to The Guardian, defending an academic book about "boy-love", calling the work "courageous", before writing:

The positive nature of some child–adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.[110]

Feel free to defend this nonce if you wish, I don't care.

I had no idea who he was until today. So I’d have a very hard time defending him.

Thanks for the supporting material. However I found this which contradicts it:

https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/what-peter-tatchell-really-said-about-child-sex-abuse/

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Do you advocate for anything that is not in your personal interest?

Yes. Legaliseation of weed even though I don't smoke; marriage equality, even though I'm not gay.

You have to be asking some very deep searching questions otherwise.

Learn how the master Pedo operates, he rarely ever gets caught. You would be better off targeting the weakest link around him.

So again, "no".

Brian?

Anthony Patch wrote: »

And child drag queens as I recall Brian.

Yes. At one stage. What’s your old username then so I know who I’m dealing with.

Brian?

Why is it that some people are always looking for paedophiles hiding around every corner? I don’t get it.

If you want to go after the horrible bastards who protected paedophiles who abused thousands of kids, go march on the bishops houses. The real offenders in Ireland are right out in the open.