Re: Hey Parg/Hyerdahl...Nun charged with sexually abusing boys


Hyerdahl wrote:
patrick.barnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hyerdahl wrote:
pandora wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:12:10 -0800, patrick.barnes wrote:


pandora wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:54:02 -0800, patrick.barnes wrote:

Hyerdahl wrote:

Everything I've
posted here is right on target.


Your claim that it is spurious to assume a sexually molested boy has
suffered psychological damage is so callous, hypocritical, self
serving, and abjectly false -- in short, so off target -- as to not
even be in the realm of reality itself.

Yeah, we're just hearing all those young boys complaining to the high
heavens about being sexually molested by women. Oh, it's priests they are
complaining about and they are male. Never mind.

What you wrote bears no relation to what I wrote.

Sure it does. What is written above reflects perspective. I think
Marg wrote it, but I could have just as easily.


What perspective is that?

Did I say more women molest boys than men? No.

I said it's unrealistic to assume that molested boys suffer no
psychological damage.

Does that say anything all about who abused the boys? No.

So exactly what perspective on that statement does you saying more
priests than nuns are molestors show?

It shows none. All it shows is that you are pathologically incapable
of simply discussing the fact that women hurt boys and men.

Of course it does.

The gender of the
child molester has nothing to do with whether the child who is molested
can suffer psychological damage without suffering physical damage.

Any molested child, male or female CAN suffer psychological damage
after the physical damage of molestation. There is always physical
damage in any molestation.

And your proof is?

Perhaps you are confused between the normal
physical damage that attends molestation and the severe damage done by
aggrivated rapes.


No, I'm not confused. I'm just not pedantic. Declaring that all rapes
cause damage because the procedures used to *test* for rape cause
superficial discomfort is absurdly pedantic. Note I didn't say it's
false. It's just ridiculous. Every beat your heart takes brings you
inevitably closer to death, so having a pulse "causes damage" too by
putting wear and tear on your organs and leading to their eventual
failure.


I beg to differ. My point is above. You just don't *get it* is all.
Your problem, not mine.

I "get" that you have a myopic view of the damage caused by rape and
that you have chosen to focus that view on boys.


Um, Pandora said that. Not me. Reading comprehension skills,
remember?

However, you are perfectly right. I see nothing wrong with a
discussion about the damage done to sexually assaulted boys. Unlike
you, I am not interested in minimizing the suffering of abuse victims
based on their gender.

You know, for a few weeks when I first came to usenet debating with you
was interesting. But your lack of reading comprehension is starting to
get tiresome. I get bored with having to say "what my point was...",
"what I really said was..." more often than not. It prevents discussion
from moving forward when I have to constantly restate what I've already
said whenever I'm talking to you.

Marg said:

Well, you know it *may* be your fault for not making yourself clear, ya
know? Or perhaps you don't. Whatever.

:-) I'm more than willing to discuss his point. Did you see something
there I missed? In fact, I think he's just pissed that I provide
points of my own. Perhaps he thinks he's reciting a soliloquy.

You're the one who builds straw man arguments instead of responding to
the points. You can bait me with your remarks about me "reciting
sililoquies" if you want to but any reader can see that my
"sililoquies" are recitation of the same points because you've quoted
them but not addressed them. The fact that you force anyone who tries
to have a rational conversation with you to repeat things over and over
again due to your deliberately missing the point is not my problem, no
matter how much you want to make it so.

Well, since you see me as such a piss-poor debator, it's really very
telling that I get so many responses. :-) You see, when a debator is
unable to refute a point I make, is generally when he resorts to my
debating techniques and their "poor" quality. If, as you suggest, my
reading comprehension is at issue, I'd guess that few would respond to
me. In the meantime, feel free to continue your soliloquy. :-) It's
much safer that way.

You're going to soc.men, bashing men, and getting a reaction for it. I
hate to break this to you, but that's hardly evidence of having razor
sharp debating skills.

.