is perceived through lenses that I have gained through reading your posts here for quite some time. I absolutely do not think that you think that abuse is OK just because it occurred in an institution to which you belong. I do not think that you believe it is not a problem. I really don't. I have seen quite a bit of defense of the church from you-I generally don' t add anything--I am busy, and others do a great job of pointing out your blind spots. I do not accuse you of excusing the unfortunate excesses and horrifying behaviors of this church. It is difficult to read any post of yours without the memory of your dodging questions, obfuscation, perhaps not deliberate obtuseness regarding-- or the misreading of others' intent in their posts or questions, or the avoiding behavior I have seen and that have been pointed out by others.

I could be wrong, of course. I do wonder, though, at, what appears to be, a sudden interest in the internal dynamics of organizations in general that makes them loathe to change, rock the boat, or hold accountable those in their midst that commit these heinous acts. How they can look on for decades. How they can ignore the victims-victimizing them again. How they can have their improprieties exposed repeatedly with no real response. These behaviors are a bit special- these are behaviors from an organization that purports to care, to have moral rectitude, to impart moral rules upon the masses, and to care about those most needing of care.

I don't believe for a second that you think any of this is OK. I don't think, really-being on my side, you are any enemy. But you might just not be seeing how what you say is perceived by many others. I will give you the benefit of the doubt-you may not mean to distract, but I have seen you do so. That's just my 2 cents. That is how some random dude on the webs, with a fairly good grasp of human nature, can see your posts as a sideways defense of an organization that does not deserve your defense.

As to your question of why organizations engage in cover ups, my view is that a sense of group loyalty over rides everything else, including the abuse of children and failing to report that abuse as soon as it is known.


And when I am accused of apologizing for the RCC, I readily admit to being dismissive of the responses because I believe that my posts do not support such a misreading of my position.

My view, expressed here, is that child abuse is criminal behavior, and covering for child abusers is even more criminal behavior.

But I also recognize that most adults are not abusers, and to call everyone in an organization complicit is ridiculous absent evidence that every member was engaged in the cover up.

how many were involved? I have read estimates that over 3,000 were involved. 3,000 too many, but that is less than 1%.

...gang, and are culpable:

Those who did, and those who knew of those who did, they are culpable.

And proving who exactly of the over 400,000 belongs to those 2 categories needs to be done.

...come into play on matters of faith?

I responded to that assertion.

...with a fallacy by attributing/applying logic to a matter of faith (i.e. that which is entirely predicated upon a belief in the existence of magic).

based on an unproven and probably unprovable assertion that you made.

...whether or not they were members of the "gang", for lack of a better word.

If they were/are part of the gang, they're culpable.

They have their colors, they have their clubhouse, they have their special gang rules, they're part of the gang, they're culpable.

is the entirety of your original assertion.

...if they joined the "gang", they're culpable.

if 0.375% of priests are culpable or 100%? They are just estimates and they don't seem matter to you. So what if an estimate is high or low. It's not even for us to decide, but for the civil authorities, who may decide it's 100%. And we'd have to be okay with that.

And it is a matter that the RCC must correct.

I didn't think you would take that argument seriously, but since you did, then 100% of them morally culpable, and by their own beliefs therefore, every one of them is 100% accountable to God and remain so every day the church does not reform itself.

This never really was about legal guilt, because even for most of those who are clearly guilty of crime, the statute of limitations has passed. But the Bible has no statute of limitations.

therefore he didn't.

Also you agreed it doesn't matter whether 0.375% are culpable or 100%, so you can't say it is fallacious to take the higher estimate.

where you claimed that I have a hidden agenda, are you certain that the poster does not also have a hidden agenda?

Or does the hidden agenda only apply to theists?

I claimed you fallaciously argued that "intent" negates a fallacious argument. Since you argued that your "intent" was paramount, and I believed your argument fallacious, I i concluded that the only way this could happen was if you intended it so. However, by making intent a requir3d part of determining a fallacy, I also concluded that anyone could always make a non-fallacious argument simply by declaring their good intentions.

My intentions are good. Therefore I am not wrong.

But since you have deemed otherwise, I am just playing by your rules.

That is for the civil authorities in each country.

but civil or criminal action is for the appropriate authorities to take.

Not just by or even primarily by civil or criminal guilt alone.

I mostly agree with those more strident detractors. I don't think that personal insults get us anywhere. I find the RCC to be completely complicit. It's gross, and unacceptable. They do nothing to prevent and do all to deflect. Defense of this organization is horrifying. They keep doing it.
I can see us doing this same thing in 20 years. We forget, time goes by, and we do it again. Meanwhile, boys(or girls) are fucked by priests. The church is appalled, makes amends, and repeat. Wash, rinse, repeat.
You can act-that has a voice, that can act-has a responsibility.
I was brought up catholic-polish-the best of them. You have the responsibility to change the church. Me--I don't give 2 shits about it. Ethically- change the church or decide they have no moral authority.

with less evidence than we see in the RCC.

Your third paragraph is absolutely correct...an entire organization (ordinarily) isn't responsible for what some of it's members do.

Problem with the RCC is that at it's highest levels it has failed to address the problem and actively covered it up for decades.

The military has congressional and media oversight, they literally have to do what Congress tells them to do. There's transparency, required reporting, etc. None of that exists in the RCC.

You admit the fault, but then point out that other institutions do the same thing, so there is really nothing unusual going on. The variation is to admit the fault so that you pre-empt the accusation that you are excusing the original problem.

I'll admit I have not seen this particular variation before, but you use it often and perhaps you have even invented it. If so, I suggest it be called Guillaumeb's Fallacy, in honor of you. It is a fallacy because merely denying you are engaging in a fallacy does not prove you are not engaging in it.

from the original post:

It is your opinion as to what your own intent is, something which I cannot see. Nonetheless, we can see that effect of successful logical fallacy is to avoid a particular issue.

They cover that in Philosophy 101 on, like, the first day.

AND SOCARATES SPOKE: "TWAS NOT A FALLACY, CUZ I TOTES DID NOT MEAN TO DISTRACT"

Not to simply avoid the issue.

And intent is irrelevant. Your OP claimed that intent is what makes something a fallacy. This is never the case. A fallacy is any type of unsound or misleading argument. It does not matter why you are making the argument. It only matters that the conclusion does not follow from the premises or evidence.

And my debate teacher would have disagreed with you as well. Noting actual facts in support of an argument is not whataboutism, nor is it tu quoque.



Your own response says :

Last edited Sun Sep 9, 2018, 07:54 AM - Edit history (1)

We learned about how advertisers use facts or phrasing to mislead. Politicians know this well. Sometimes, when asked one question, they answer a different question. Everything they say can be true, but they still didn't answer the question. It's always misleading and there are many reason why they might not want to answer a question.

For whataboutism, it doesn't matter if the response is actually true. If I am pulled over for speeding and I say, "Yes I was speeding, but so was everyone else," I am not lying, everything I said was true, and I am not intending to mislead. I am trying to convince the cop not to give me a ticket.

The argument may even work, but for emotional reasons only. The cop may agree it's unfair for me to be the only one getting a ticket. But it's still a fallacy because it has no bearing on the fact that I broke the law and got caught.

An argument can unintentionally be unsound or misleading. In fact, I think unintentionally bad arguments are more common than intentional. People's brains trick them all the time. Rational argument ability doesn't come naturally. It is a learned behavior, it takes effort, it take self-criticism, and requires a commitment to continuous improvement.

An argument can be unintentionally untrue if the one speaking is uninformed. But if there is no intent to mislead, and if the argument is based on fact, it is not a fallacy.

An argument "based on fact" may nonetheless be unsound. I already gave you one, but you are unwilling or unable to accept it. You can up with almost any argument claimed to be "based on fact" and it could still be unsound. By your definition, you can also justify any argument, no matter how bad, simply by claiming you don't intend to mislead. 2+2=5 if I don't intend to mislead. Also it can be said to "based on fact" since I did in fact perform the arithmetic operation and got that answer, and I also don't intend to mislead you.

The point of using the to quoque fallacy is to render something meaningless by implying that everyone, or at least one's debate opponent, does it.


But everyone is not a pedophile, and stating that pedophiles are found in many institutions is neither whataboutism nor tu quoque when the point and the intent of the argument is not to divert.

If I write a post about the RCC's problem with pedophiles while also noting the similarity to cover up techniques found in many institutions, that is an attempt to understand that this behavior pattern, the cover up, is a tendency of many organizations.

But given that my post also acknlowedges the crimes, both the original crimes and the subsequent cover ups, it is obvious that enough information is presented to the reader.

And I do believe it was your intent to do so, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

The intent of tu quoque is to divert.

My post admitted that the problem exists.
And with that, and your accusation of my bad faith, I am done with this exchange.

as Sen. Leahy said, "I was born at night, but not last night." Hiding a fallacy behind "intent" is not a sign of good intentions. People with good intentions don't hide behind "intent." They let their words and actions speak for themselves.

So you should have no problem if are accused of it.

...and you know it.

Guillaume--» 😍

He is not trying to distract from the fact that it happened. He is trying to distract from the unique size and scope of the problem in the RCC.

He's saying, "Look! See! Everyone does it, so it's not that big a deal."

And it does not matter if you actually admit the fault or not. Gil makes a big show of his "admission" but the fallacy is not dependent on admitting the fault, or in Gil's case, a minimized version of the problem.

Instead he focuses on his "intent," so I made an exception to my rule of not questioning someone's intent. We can't see other people's intent so it is irrelevant to disproving fallacies.

in long subthreads most of the time. I especially don't do the back and forth exchanges in deeply indented subthreads. I consider them a complete waste of time, since they always devolve into "you said, I said" nonsense.

it is not in accord with the need to present theists in the worst possible light.

Your statement must be rejected.

We really need to move this to the Humor Group.

There can be a civil and charitable relationship in a mid-western friendly sorta way with 'others' but apparently not in any discourse pertaining to 'religion'. I do not favor that word 'religion'.

Luv ya pookie bear!

Perhaps theism?

called 'religious'.

Some want to minimize it or sweep it away in false equivalence. Then they hide their false equivalencies behind "intent' like a police officer shooting someone in his own apartment. Right.

Abusing children isn't like other crimes and networks of abusive priests acting with knowledge of the Vatican isn't like a single soldier being protected by a unit commander. But some say it is all the same. Not to me.

I had family communicating in the Roman Rite church, and I know they would be troubled by this, and so it's troubling to witness what is being revealed on a larger scale more recently.

Other than having a resolution that would take care of this never happening again, there will always be a percentage of horrendous sinful acts perpetrated against innocents.

Mb the Roman church will do itself in of its own accord. And I hardly take glee in that. But, there can be followers who, if 'seeing' light and not dwelling in darkness, take matters into their own hands as someone posted.

This not only a spiritual matter, it's most certainly a civil one.

The Roman rite worshippers are my brothers and sisters in Christ as best as they have been immersed in their tradition of faith.

Holy Scripture says the 'elect' will be judged more harshly. Which is not really a consolation when the laity essentially do hold their shepherds to a higher standard.

Those of the cloth are representatives of Christ and should also hold themselves to a high standard. Otherwise.....

Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2018, 08:20 AM - Edit history (1)

We hold doctors to higher standard than others, why not others. It's not enough to say that institutions protect themselves, not all do it, and not all to the same degree. The church has to police its own, and hold itself to account.

Why so vague?

Check his thread if you want to see who calls him out on it.

and your "summary" of my post leaves out what disproves your assertion. But you are free to mis-define and misrepresent as you wish.

Kinda amusing at this point.

China is there, somewhere, but mind the magma.

Nice try.

You ARE distracting. You ARE trying to change the subject. In the Religion group, it's entirely on topic to discuss religion's role in crimes of abuse and violence - and the coverup of said crimes. But you CONSTANTLY try to change the subject away from religion, and you CONSTANTLY employ propaganda tools like whataboutism and logical fallacies in order to do so.

sometimes blinds us to the issues shared by all major organized religions.

But when we see clear patterns of all institutions covering up for the wrongdoing of their own members, we should not be surprised that the behavior patterns common to institutions are present even in religious institutions.

Explain yourself.

Other prisoners hate child molesters. But it's no barrier to being priest, even if you admit before you become a priest that you are a pedophile.

Those being considered for the priestly vocation who are known/admitted molesters still get ordained?

A future priest told another priest about his inclinations. The other priest discounted this admission and told.to become a priest anyway. He went on to abuse dozens of boys.