Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 Coren's new book
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Saudi Arabia
1266 Posts

Posted - 04/14/2011 :  00:07:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Obviously, your standard of "most likely to work" is different from mine. We have solid evidence of a global conspiracy involving all levels of hierarchy in an organization to hide and worse-yet enable the sordid victimization of those least able to protect themselves by those in positions of ultimate trust, but you think that a mere quantization of failure (which is really a tu quoque fallacy) will be more compelling.


Yes obviously it is, which is the point I was making. And once again you think that your absolute argument from logic will somehow prove this. I don't think most people know or care what a tu quoque fallacy is.

Dude said:
It proves that the entire organization is corrupt.


For the vast majority of Catholics their contact to the church is through their local priest. The general impression I get from catholics is that there are a few bad apples, and the cover-up was carried out by some old men in the Vatican (like the pope). But tell them that their local priest is X times more likely to be a pedophile? I think that is more potent than some X-Files conspiracy crap which is already known to the public anyway. I'm serious, try it out on a Catholic and see what they are more surprised by, I bet it's the numbers.

So Adrian Liston should have said that Catholic priests are 100 times more likely to be sexually abusive of children than US day-care providers, and nearly 1,000-fold more likely than teachers.


Yes this is pretty explosive information. I'm thinking of putting it on a pamphlet. I'm thinking of "What the catholic church didn't want you to know" as a title.

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 04/14/2011 :  04:54:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

Yes obviously it is, which is the point I was making. And once again you think that your absolute argument from logic will somehow prove this.
You seem to be confused about what I'm saying.
I don't think most people know or care what a tu quoque fallacy is.
Most people don't know it by name, but most people's parents teach them that it's baloney while they're still in their single-digit years.
For the vast majority of Catholics their contact to the church is through their local priest. The general impression I get from catholics is that there are a few bad apples, and the cover-up was carried out by some old men in the Vatican (like the pope).
The very core of the Church.
But tell them that their local priest is X times more likely to be a pedophile? I think that is more potent than some X-Files conspiracy crap which is already known to the public anyway.
It's an actual conspiracy, nothing X-Files about it.
I'm serious, try it out on a Catholic and see what they are more surprised by, I bet it's the numbers.
It's your claim, you test it.
Yes this is pretty explosive information. I'm thinking of putting it on a pamphlet. I'm thinking of "What the catholic church didn't want you to know" as a title.
Be sure to tell 'em that day-care providers are ten times more likely to molest their kids than teachers, too, since that's what the numbers say. Something tells me that the same weak statistical method applied to professional clowns would be rather damning for them, also.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Saudi Arabia
1266 Posts

Posted - 04/14/2011 :  05:20:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It's your claim, you test it.


I already have many times since this morning.
Although I'm sure you think your conspiracy theory works even better as you claim, why not go test that. I think your unwavering belief that your argument will work best simply because it is the most logical is totally arrogant, and also totally naive. Personally I'm starting to have doubts about your actual ability to empathize with anybody, given that the majority of regular users you guys have managed to attract to this board (like all 6 of them) seem to be fat, intellectual men with neckbeards, although maybe amongst that core demographic your arguments from logic work really well, I wouldn't know.

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 04/14/2011 :  06:40:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

I already have many times since this morning.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Although I'm sure you think your conspiracy theory works even better as you claim, why not go test that.
I've got no ability to test it. I think it's more compelling because it's a bigger story and more amenable to flashy headlines than your rate comparison angle. But I have neither the time nor money to conduct a proper study.
I think your unwavering belief that your argument will work best simply because it is the most logical is totally arrogant, and also totally naive.
Yes, you are completely confused about what I've been saying. I have no belief as you've described here. I don't think that relating the facts of the global conspiracy to harm children is "the most logical" argument. I don't know how you could possibly come to these conclusions based on what I've written.
Personally I'm starting to have doubts about your actual ability to empathize with anybody, given that the majority of regular users you guys have managed to attract to this board (like all 6 of them) seem to be fat, intellectual men with neckbeards, although maybe amongst that core demographic your arguments from logic work really well, I wouldn't know.
And now you've devolved into spewing incoherent personal insults, just because you disagree with me over the best method to achieve the same goal. How bizarre is that?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 04/15/2011 :  23:38:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.
The fact that it was a tu quoque killed it dead in the first place.


It's not a tu quoque argument, comparing a the average in a subset to the average of a population is good as long as you aren't trying to claim the ones who did commit the crime are innocent because of the difference.

Even the article prefaced the argument with:

"This is vile, but whether it is more vile than the record of any other profession is not obvious."

The argument was only claiming that the Church isn't full of child rapists, and such a comparison is useful for that.

You may argue that the tu quoque was claiming the organization is innocent, but it didn't do that either, it criticized its structure and inability to punish powerful members for misbehavior (be it child abuse or cover-up). For a group, guilt isn't binary, it's a matter of degree, so there is no tu quoque fallacy.

Your linked statistics showed the author's statistics were wrong, which was entirely needed to refute his argument.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Edited by - Machi4velli on 04/15/2011 23:40:00
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 04/16/2011 :  00:01:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

It's not a tu quoque argument, comparing a the average in a subset to the average of a population is good as long as you aren't trying to claim the ones who did commit the crime are innocent because of the difference.

Even the article prefaced the argument with:

"This is vile, but whether it is more vile than the record of any other profession is not obvious."

The argument was only claiming that the Church isn't full of child rapists, and such a comparison is useful for that.

You may argue that the tu quoque was claiming the organization is innocent, but it didn't do that either, it criticized its structure and inability to punish powerful members for misbehavior (be it child abuse or cover-up). For a group, guilt isn't binary, it's a matter of degree, so there is no tu quoque fallacy.
Coren's tu quoque is actually in response to the outrage expressed. He has been saying (for quite some time now) that we shouldn't be more angry at the priests than we are at anyone else, because other groups do the same horrible things in equal amounts. Whether we are being consistent in our response to child molesters or not is a binary (although I'm unaware of why that quality is relevant to identifying the fallacy), and that consistency is what Coren's numerical tu quoque apology is attacking.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 04/19/2011 :  20:22:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, why should we be more angry at child molesting priests than other child molesters? I'm pretty much equally angry at all child molesters, and equally angry at all people participating in hiding child molestation.

I think the quality of binary guilt matters if the argument is in defense of a group. If the group is a superset of the rapists within (and a superset of the people who helped hide the rape), being angry with the whole group isn't quite fair, as some did nothing wrong. So I think we can argue relative guilt on the part of a group with some legitimate meaning.

I would be more angry with a group that had 20% child rapists than a group with 10% child rapists (of course I'm still angry with the 10% group). If A is bad and then we find B that is worse, A is still bad. Coren's numbers don't add up, but if they did, I don't think it would be such a bad argument.

Again, in the particular post linked in the thread, he didn't claim innocence of the Church or argue that the members of the Church's crimes were justified as a result of the comparison. I don't know what he's argued in the past.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 04/19/2011 :  21:10:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
His book seems to be doing well.


>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 04/19/2011 :  23:42:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

Well, why should we be more angry at child molesting priests than other child molesters?
Because, as I've already discussed, priests present themselves as God's own chaste messengers of absolute morality. The molestation is compounded massive hypocrisy.
I'm pretty much equally angry at all child molesters, and equally angry at all people participating in hiding child molestation.
And the institutional conspiracy to hide the crimes compounds the guilt even more.
I think the quality of binary guilt matters if the argument is in defense of a group. If the group is a superset of the rapists within (and a superset of the people who helped hide the rape), being angry with the whole group isn't quite fair, as some did nothing wrong. So I think we can argue relative guilt on the part of a group with some legitimate meaning.
If the innocent majority condemns the crimes, I'd be all for absolving them. Members of the group who remain silent are, in a small way, complicit in the cover-up. The number of Catholic priests and apologists who've made unqualified statements against the behavior of their child-molesting brothers is extraordinarily small. Coren is not one of them, since he's gone beyond mere silence and into defending the scumbags.
I would be more angry with a group that had 20% child rapists than a group with 10% child rapists (of course I'm still angry with the 10% group). If A is bad and then we find B that is worse, A is still bad. Coren's numbers don't add up, but if they did, I don't think it would be such a bad argument.
Again, this is a group that portrays themselves as beyond reproach. The fact that the rate for them is above zero is a betrayal of the trust that they have crafted for themselves.
Again, in the particular post linked in the thread, he didn't claim innocence of the Church or argue that the members of the Church's crimes were justified as a result of the comparison. I don't know what he's argued in the past.
Well, the context of his past apologies is important to understanding exactly what he's saying.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

alienist
Skeptic Friend

USA
210 Posts

Posted - 04/20/2011 :  06:52:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send alienist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
the majority of regular users you guys have managed to attract to this board (like all 6 of them) seem to be fat, intellectual men with neckbeards,

Hey, I'm female. And I resent your comment about my neck beard

The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.55 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000