PDA

View Full Version : Victims of pedophile priests and imams help create more victims with silence.



Gnostic Bishop
13-02-2016, 05:10 AM
Victims of pedophile priests and imams help create more victims with silence.

I recently watched this disturbing movie and recognize that what it portrays fairly closely what is happenings in reality right now.

https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=fQaNVNrJDInB8gfpqIDACw&gws_rd=ssl#q=spotlight+trailer

The silence and complicity of the religious are facilitating and colluding in the future assaults on children. Silence or the acceptance of a payoff, in my opinion, is direct collusion with these religious criminals and I see the past victims of these pedophiles as now helping their own assailants create new victims by their silence.

I appreciate that going public is hard, but if victims do not come forward, I see them as helping the priests and imams that are left free to abuse other children.

There are some who will read this and know that in a real sense victims are guilty of helping the pedophile problem continue.

I would urge these victims and their families to step up and do the right thing and return the payoffs and lay charges instead so that we can rid our churches and mosques of these predatory criminals.

Do you agree that silence is just as immoral as the initial crime when victims accept payoffs from religions to buy their silence?

Regards
DL

Agent Smith
13-02-2016, 05:29 AM
Make sure to catch the Prophet's Prey documentary.
(Streaming on SBS for a short while longer , ad blocker needs disabling
www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/467865667910/prophets-prey)
It is about the polygamous Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint cult and, sadly, to me illustrates religion in a nutshell.
Their leader takes 60+ wives, some disturbingly young, and is totally exposed and sent to prison for life.

Gnostic Bishop
13-02-2016, 05:35 AM
Make sure to catch the Prophet's Prey documentary.
(Streaming on SBS for a short while longer , ad blocker needs disabling
www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/467865667910/prophets-prey)
It is about the polygamous Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint cult and, sadly, to me illustrates religion in a nutshell.
Their leader takes 60+ wives, some disturbing young, and is totally exposed and sent to prison for life.

Thanks for this. I will check it out.

Care to opine on the morality issue I brought up?

Regards
DL

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2016, 11:00 AM
Do you agree that silence is just as immoral as the initial crime when victims accept payoffs from religions to buy their silence?

No I don't. I can see the argument that a victim who does nothing, knowing that they themselves have suffered and hence that others may suffer if they do not act, is doing something wrong. At least, it's disappointing. But they themselves may be traumatised by what has happened to them, which makes it harder to judge them. Certainly such a victim is nowhere near as bad as a victim who becomes a perpetrator, and a victim who becomes a perpetrator is very slightly less bad than a perpetrator who was never themselves a victim.

I think it is better approached from the perspective that a person who has suffered abuse and speaks out against it is heroic and brave, especially if they have turned down a payoff to do so. While if an offender's victims are too traumatised to speak out and this makes them complicit in further offences, then the original offender should be held responsible for those too.

Agent Smith
13-02-2016, 03:05 PM
Yeah, come on man. You can't be too old , to say such a provoking statement.
You'll never have to live through things that these victims had to, when they were not even teenagers.

Desmond
13-02-2016, 04:56 PM
A better question would be is the religious institution that offers the payout as bad as or worse than the pedophile for shielding him and enabling further crimes.

Patrick Byrom
13-02-2016, 07:08 PM
No I don't. I can see the argument that a victim who does nothing, knowing that they themselves have suffered and hence that others may suffer if they do not act, is doing something wrong. At least, it's disappointing. But they themselves may be traumatised by what has happened to them, which makes it harder to judge them. Certainly such a victim is nowhere near as bad as a victim who becomes a perpetrator, and a victim who becomes a perpetrator is very slightly less bad than a perpetrator who was never themselves a victim.
I would add that when many of these crimes occurred, the victims did report what happened, but the claims were either ignored or covered-up.

I've been watching The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo on SBS, which actually covers similar issues. Even in a liberal country such as Sweden, it shows how people could get away with such activities, because of their power and influence.

Gnostic Bishop
14-02-2016, 02:47 AM
No I don't. I can see the argument that a victim who does nothing, knowing that they themselves have suffered and hence that others may suffer if they do not act, is doing something wrong. At least, it's disappointing. But they themselves may be traumatised by what has happened to them, which makes it harder to judge them. Certainly such a victim is nowhere near as bad as a victim who becomes a perpetrator, and a victim who becomes a perpetrator is very slightly less bad than a perpetrator who was never themselves a victim.

I think it is better approached from the perspective that a person who has suffered abuse and speaks out against it is heroic and brave, especially if they have turned down a payoff to do so. While if an offender's victims are too traumatised to speak out and this makes them complicit in further offences, then the original offender should be held responsible for those too.

Some of your thinking is on the mark but to say that the original offender is culpable for what you state is the complicit actions of the first victim, I think odd.

The victim is responsible for his own actions. Not his assailant.

The victim can either do the right thing and lay a charge or he can do the wrong thing and take a payoff.

Way too often they take the payoff and allow the smiling pedophile priest or imam the freedom to seek another victim.

That immorality is why we have these kinds of laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

Laying charges is hard on the victims but that is how they gain closure.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
14-02-2016, 02:51 AM
Yeah, come on man. You can't be too old , to say such a provoking statement.
You'll never have to live through things that these victims had to, when they were not even teenagers.

I am 65 and have an excellent grasp of morality as shown by my advocating that victims and their greedy parents follow the laws shown in those wiki links just above.

Societies have Good Samaritan and Duty to rescue laws for good and moral reasons. Yet most are not recognizing the duty being ignored by not laying charges and just taking the payoff.

If I was a pedophile priest or imam, I would be smiling. I would love the idea that most people saw sex crimes against children as a form of prostitution where the price is negotiated by the parents after the crime.

Shame on those parents.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
14-02-2016, 02:53 AM
A better question would be is the religious institution that offers the payout as bad as or worse than the pedophile for shielding him and enabling further crimes.

I do not know your answer but I would say that they are definitely culpable and should face justice for their collusion in the following sex crimes.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
14-02-2016, 02:57 AM
I would add that when many of these crimes occurred, the victims did report what happened, but the claims were either ignored or covered-up.

I've been watching The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo on SBS, which actually covers similar issues. Even in a liberal country such as Sweden, it shows how people could get away with such activities, because of their power and influence.

Police cannot ignore a person wishing to lay a charge.

Police, as often happens, just indicate how hard it is to make such charges stick. In that way, they discourage the laying of charges but if a person/victim is adamant then they must lay the charge.

Regards
DL

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2016, 10:56 AM
Some of your thinking is on the mark but to say that the original offender is culpable for what you state is the complicit actions of the first victim, I think odd.

The victim is responsible for his own actions. Not his assailant.

I think your comments show a significant lack of ability to put yourself in the shoes of all such victims. The victim has been traumatised by their ordeal and may well experience long-lasting or even permanent psychological illnesses arising from it, although the impacts on specific victims will vary greatly. This may make it much more difficult for them to speak out than if they were an unaffected person who just happened to know about the offence.

Duty to rescue laws apply only to people in specific positions or relationships concerning cases of danger to a specific person. They do not create a duty from a victim to a stranger who might hypothetically become a victim.

Suppose we substitute rapists for clergy and rape victims for victims of child sexual assault in your opening post. Hardly unreasonable since child sexual assault is a special case of rape. Would it then be argued that a rape victim who does not lay charges is as culpable for future rapes as the rapist?

Victims who successfully lay charges may well gain closure. Victims who try to lay charges but do not succeed may have their suffering compounded. We should not be blaming victims for what they do in difficult circumstances.

Gnostic Bishop
16-02-2016, 06:42 AM
I think your comments show a significant lack of ability to put yourself in the shoes of all such victims. The victim has been traumatised by their ordeal and may well experience long-lasting or even permanent psychological illnesses arising from it, although the impacts on specific victims will vary greatly. This may make it much more difficult for them to speak out than if they were an unaffected person who just happened to know about the offence.

Duty to rescue laws apply only to people in specific positions or relationships concerning cases of danger to a specific person. They do not create a duty from a victim to a stranger who might hypothetically become a victim.

Suppose we substitute rapists for clergy and rape victims for victims of child sexual assault in your opening post. Hardly unreasonable since child sexual assault is a special case of rape. Would it then be argued that a rape victim who does not lay charges is as culpable for future rapes as the rapist?

Victims who successfully lay charges may well gain closure. Victims who try to lay charges but do not succeed may have their suffering compounded. We should not be blaming victims for what they do in difficult circumstances.

It is difficult for sure but closure is best via justice than via a payoff for silence and allowing the predator freedom to find his next victim.

This a moral and legal issue and if reporting was not done for many other crimes, the one not speaking up would be found in collusion.

The moral tenet of, do unto others as we would want done to us is what I am applying here.

Is it better to do unto others by warning them of the predator in their midst, or is doing unto others better served by silence?

Regards
DL

Desmond
16-02-2016, 11:34 AM
If the victim did report it to the religious institution, then they have a reasonable expectation that the appropriate action to stop repeat occurrence will happen.

A bit like not stopping to help at an accident if people are already there helping.

As far as I can see the fault is with the institution not the victim.

They are the one that should have helped, but instead turned away other helpers, whilst watching the accident victim bleed out.

Gnostic Bishop
17-02-2016, 08:05 AM
If the victim did report it to the religious institution, then they have a reasonable expectation that the appropriate action to stop repeat occurrence will happen.

A bit like not stopping to help at an accident if people are already there helping.

As far as I can see the fault is with the institution not the victim.

They are the one that should have helped, but instead turned away other helpers, whilst watching the accident victim bleed out.

Understood but to have the scenario complete, you need to recognize that the accident victim that survived should be hanging out a sign telling other drivers of the hazard just ahead that will victimize them as well.

You are correct that the church or mosque should act but when seeing them do nothing but offering a payoff for silence, the victim and mostly his parents should do unto others as they would want done to them and warn the community of a predator.

That Golden Rules is basically accepted as the best moral rule and the victims and their parents are ignoring it and doing the opposite.

Regards
DL

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2016, 09:21 PM
It is difficult for sure but closure is best via justice than via a payoff for silence and allowing the predator freedom to find his next victim.

Agree, but the search for justice unfortunately is not a reliable road to closure.


This a moral and legal issue and if reporting was not done for many other crimes, the one not speaking up would be found in collusion.

Those are typically crimes where A harms B, while C who is unharmed knows about it but fails to report. Such crimes are different from cases where A harms B and B then decides not to report.

Gnostic Bishop
20-02-2016, 01:47 AM
Agree, but the search for justice unfortunately is not a reliable road to closure.



Those are typically crimes where A harms B, while C who is unharmed knows about it but fails to report. Such crimes are different from cases where A harms B and B then decides not to report.

Different, yes, but immoral when you consider the Golden Rule.

In a string of a predators assaults, if any at the beginning laid charges, then the following victims would not be created.

Doing unto others says we are to protect each other from predators and reporting them to the community is the moral thing to do.

Regards
DL

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
20-02-2016, 02:14 AM
GB, How are victims to trust the reporting of such crimes to the necessary authorities when other institutions they have engaged in eg religious have failed in their duties.

How motivated do you think one becomes to discuss religious wrongdoing with a further institution (justice) of unknown merit ?

Gnostic Bishop
23-02-2016, 12:44 AM
GB, How are victims to trust the reporting of such crimes to the necessary authorities when other institutions they have engaged in eg religious have failed in their duties.

How motivated do you think one becomes to discuss religious wrongdoing with a further institution (justice) of unknown merit ?

I do not see kids well motivated at all when their parents are more concerned with money and silence than the assault.

Parents control this and not the poor child victim.

Yet most are not recognizing the duty being ignored by not laying charges and just taking the payoff.

If I was a pedophile priest or imam, I would be smiling. I would love the idea that most people saw sex crimes against children as a form of prostitution where the price is negotiated by the parents after the crime.

Shame on those parents and shame on those who pay them off.

Regards
DL

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
23-02-2016, 09:02 PM
Gnostic Bishop you really are far too careless and provocative for your own good and clearly shouldn't be trusted with starting any threads relating to sensitive issues.

You've entitled the thread "Victims of pedophile priests and imams help create more victims with silence " but then you go on to instead slag off the parents of victims. Clearly this thread is a complete train wreck.

Read the title again and see how idiotic this thread has been, when the title indicates that you are attacking victims, not the parents of victims.

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2016, 01:12 AM
Different, yes, but immoral when you consider the Golden Rule.

I consider the Golden Rule to be piffle.

Gnostic Bishop
24-02-2016, 02:52 AM
Gnostic Bishop you really are far too careless and provocative for your own good and clearly shouldn't be trusted with starting any threads relating to sensitive issues.

You've entitled the thread "Victims of pedophile priests and imams help create more victims with silence " but then you go on to instead slag off the parents of victims. Clearly this thread is a complete train wreck.

Read the title again and see how idiotic this thread has been, when the title indicates that you are attacking victims, not the parents of victims.

I guess that I assumed that those like you would know that parents are the guardians of children.

I will have to dumb things down next time for those of your ilk.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
24-02-2016, 02:55 AM
I consider the Golden Rule to be piffle.

Yet most theologies, philosophies and law are based on it.

If not that, what is your first moral tenet?

Regards
DL

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2016, 11:36 AM
Yet most theologies, philosophies and law are based on it.

I'm far from convinced that that is true. For instance many laws are based on the principle of deterrence. Plenty of philosophers have rejected the golden rule, and while religions generally include it, they also nearly always include aspects that contradict it (such as sexuality policing or blasphemy laws).


If not that, what is your first moral tenet?

Who says a person needs a "first moral tenet"?

This may require a thread split but I'll say why I think the Golden Rule is piffle. In its most basic form it seems to imply that a masochist should whip everybody because the masochist would like to be whipped, or even that a person who would like to be killed should try to kill everybody. So it has to be modified so that what you do unto others is based not on the quality of the action but on some deeper principle of giving them what they want.

That then brings us to something like charity. I see a beggar in the street and the beggar asks me for money. I think that if I was that beggar I would like to be given money, so it seems I should give money to the beggar, and every other beggar I meet. But suppose instead that I am the beggar (which I soon will be if I keep doing that). It might occur to me that if I was the person with money, I would prefer not to give it to the beggar, and certainly I wouldn't like to be asked for money myself. So if I'm the beggar, I might conclude that I shouldn't beg, or shouldn't even accept money if it is offered.

Of course it depends on which formulation of the Golden Rule we use and if we use a purely negative one that simply focuses on avoiding harms that we would not wish to suffer then there may be fewer problems.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
24-02-2016, 02:04 PM
I guess that I assumed that those like you would know that parents are the guardians of children.

I will have to dumb things down next time for those of your ilk.

Regards
DL

What does knowing "parents are the guardians of childen" have got to do with you vilifying the children themselves in the title of this thread ?

If you are trying to emulate Anitichrists brand of idiotic and insensitive narcissism then you are certainly succeeding. And we clearly dont need another Antichrist.

Try to engage the limited power that the withered mouldy old pea inside your cranium offers before posting your usual confused effluent.

Best of luck coming up with a reply that actually makes sense,
DM.

Gnostic Bishop
25-02-2016, 03:55 AM
I'm far from convinced that that is true. For instance many laws are based on the principle of deterrence. Plenty of philosophers have rejected the golden rule, and while religions generally include it, they also nearly always include aspects that contradict it (such as sexuality policing or blasphemy laws).



Who says a person needs a "first moral tenet"?

This may require a thread split but I'll say why I think the Golden Rule is piffle. In its most basic form it seems to imply that a masochist should whip everybody because the masochist would like to be whipped, or even that a person who would like to be killed should try to kill everybody. So it has to be modified so that what you do unto others is based not on the quality of the action but on some deeper principle of giving them what they want.

That then brings us to something like charity. I see a beggar in the street and the beggar asks me for money. I think that if I was that beggar I would like to be given money, so it seems I should give money to the beggar, and every other beggar I meet. But suppose instead that I am the beggar (which I soon will be if I keep doing that). It might occur to me that if I was the person with money, I would prefer not to give it to the beggar, and certainly I wouldn't like to be asked for money myself. So if I'm the beggar, I might conclude that I shouldn't beg, or shouldn't even accept money if it is offered.

Of course it depends on which formulation of the Golden Rule we use and if we use a purely negative one that simply focuses on avoiding harms that we would not wish to suffer then there may be fewer problems.

Masochist?

You reject what the vast majority accept as their first moral tenet because it does not apply to masochist and normal people while it does to other masochist.

Thanks for the honest discussion.

"Who says a person needs a "first moral tenet"?"

I do and you cannot have a second without a first.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
25-02-2016, 04:02 AM
What does knowing "parents are the guardians of childen" have got to do with you vilifying the children themselves in the title of this thread ?

If you are trying to emulate Anitichrists brand of idiotic and insensitive narcissism then you are certainly succeeding. And we clearly dont need another Antichrist.

Try to engage the limited power that the withered mouldy old pea inside your cranium offers before posting your usual confused effluent.

Best of luck coming up with a reply that actually makes sense,
DM.

Victims come in all ages and only so much will fit into an O.P. before those with low I.Q.'s or your type of attention span get overloaded.

Every victim can and should have the last say but with children, we all knoe that in many of these abuse cases, parents arte the ones deciding to take the payoffs. That does not take all blame away from children. It does take most of it away.

Regards
DL

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2016, 08:52 AM
Masochist?

You reject what the vast majority accept as their first moral tenet because it does not apply to masochist and normal people while it does to other masochist.

If something is to be valid as a first moral tenet then it needs to be applicable to everyone. If some individuals using it will cause problems, then it needs to be modified or abandoned. This is especially so in the case of child abuse because unfortunately some pederasts believe they are helping or pleasuring their victims, despite all evidence to the contrary.


"Who says a person needs a "first moral tenet"?"

I do and you cannot have a second without a first.

Not correct; one could have multiple equally strong tenets provided they were compatible with each other.

Do you have any evidence that a person needs a first moral tenet, or indeed any moral tenets at all? As opposed, for instance, to a person simply having a friendly or at least harmless disposition towards others without feeling that they need to be guided by any specific moral principles?

Gnostic Bishop
25-02-2016, 10:12 AM
If something is to be valid as a first moral tenet then it needs to be applicable to everyone. If some individuals using it will cause problems, then it needs to be modified or abandoned. This is especially so in the case of child abuse because unfortunately some pederasts believe they are helping or pleasuring their victims, despite all evidence to the contrary.



Not correct; one could have multiple equally strong tenets provided they were compatible with each other.

Do you have any evidence that a person needs a first moral tenet, or indeed any moral tenets at all? As opposed, for instance, to a person simply having a friendly or at least harmless disposition towards others without feeling that they need to be guided by any specific moral principles?

A harmless disposition towards others is a moral tenet.

Harm/Care is what most people have as a first moral tenet and that decision of harm or care for others is what most can discern as reciprocity which is doing unto others.

And your saying that normal morals do not apply to those close to insane or who have accepted moral tenets that do not start with Harm/Care is correct. They are not what the average would call moral at all.

Regards
DL

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2016, 07:46 PM
A harmless disposition towards others is a moral tenet.

No it's not; a tenet is a principle. If someone doesn't believe on principle that they need to avoid harm to others, but just happens to be the sort of person who doesn't feel like being harmful, then their opposition isn't principled. They're just an ambiable person.


Harm/Care is what most people have as a first moral tenet and that decision of harm or care for others is what most can discern as reciprocity which is doing unto others.

What even is "Harm/Care"? I don't think most people would have any idea what their first moral tenet was if you asked them. They might invoke some variant of "Do unto others ..." after thinking about it but that doesn't mean they actually follow it.


And your saying that normal morals do not apply to those close to insane or who have accepted moral tenets that do not start with Harm/Care is correct. They are not what the average would call moral at all.

Could be argued that they're the ones a tenet most needs to apply to if it is to be of much use at all.

To get this back to the abuse discussion, if the argument is that a victim should put themselves in the position of a person who is at risk and think that that person would like not to be at risk and act accordingly, then I can see where that is coming from. But for the victim this would often not be easy. We're asking a person who has already been harmed to put themselves through more harm. Again we should be appreciating and encouraging rather than blaming and pressuring.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
25-02-2016, 08:35 PM
Victims come in all ages and only so much will fit into an O.P. before those with low I.Q.'s or your type of attention span get overloaded.

Every victim can and should have the last say but with children, we all knoe that in many of these abuse cases, parents arte the ones deciding to take the payoffs. That does not take all blame away from children. It does take most of it away.

Regards
DL

Id would love to know how youve assumed that you are blessed with a high IQ. I highly doubt it is due to the necessary accreditation.

Best of luck,

DM.

Gnostic Bishop
25-02-2016, 10:57 PM
Id would love to know how youve assumed that you are blessed with a high IQ. I highly doubt it is due to the necessary accreditation.

Best of luck,

DM.

You would be right. My formal education was not much but I still know what I am.

Being white in a rich nation is a major factor.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=race+bell+curve&biw=967&bih=551&tbm=isch&imgil=AZvt6zcocCOqeM%253A%253B4-0phl0__Klq_M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fthe-unpopular-facts.tumblr.com%25252Fpost%25252F50535582878%2525 2Fpeople-will-bring-up-the-bell-curve-and-how-there&source=iu&pf=m&fir=AZvt6zcocCOqeM%253A%252C4-0phl0__Klq_M%252C_&usg=__WcsxX7f3OEt0emsnww-E7_pLLjA%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjD3vKl-5LLAhWDlh4KHReKDvwQyjcINA&ei=5_nOVoPPHoOtepeUuuAP#imgrc=AZvt6zcocCOqeM%3A

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
25-02-2016, 11:10 PM
No it's not; a tenet is a principle. If someone doesn't believe on principle that they need to avoid harm to others, but just happens to be the sort of person who doesn't feel like being harmful, then their opposition isn't principled. They're just an ambiable person.



What even is "Harm/Care"? I don't think most people would have any idea what their first moral tenet was if you asked them. They might invoke some variant of "Do unto others ..." after thinking about it but that doesn't mean they actually follow it.



Could be argued that they're the ones a tenet most needs to apply to if it is to be of much use at all.

To get this back to the abuse discussion, if the argument is that a victim should put themselves in the position of a person who is at risk and think that that person would like not to be at risk and act accordingly, then I can see where that is coming from. But for the victim this would often not be easy. We're asking a person who has already been harmed to put themselves through more harm. Again we should be appreciating and encouraging rather than blaming and pressuring.

Social psychologist call it a moral tenet so I am not going to argue semantics and the meaning of words.

This link should bring you up to speed and get us closer to the same page.

70% of us do seem to know what their first moral tenet is though.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en

"To get this back to the abuse discussion, if the argument is that a victim should put themselves in the position of a person who is at risk and think that that person would like not to be at risk and act accordingly, then I can see where that is coming from. But for the victim this would often not be easy. We're asking a person who has already been harmed to put themselves through more harm. Again we should be appreciating and encouraging rather than blaming and pressuring."

I agree but to encourage a moral path says that the other path is not moral. The victim will always see that as blame if he takes it and in a sense, it is deserved. We reward for good and punish for evil works.

At the same time, if you see doing unto others as our first moral tenet, which is shown above as Harm/Care, and do not promote closure through charging the perpetrator, then you are not following the tenet we should all be following.

I know that we all feel for the victim, but at the same time, our duty is to have him or her also feel for the victims they may help create if they follow parental advice, and take the payoff for silence.

Regards
DL

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
26-02-2016, 02:07 AM
You would be right. My formal education was not much but I still know what I am.

Being white in a rich nation is a major factor.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=race+bell+curve&biw=967&bih=551&tbm=isch&imgil=AZvt6zcocCOqeM%253A%253B4-0phl0__Klq_M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fthe-unpopular-facts.tumblr.com%25252Fpost%25252F50535582878%2525 2Fpeople-will-bring-up-the-bell-curve-and-how-there&source=iu&pf=m&fir=AZvt6zcocCOqeM%253A%252C4-0phl0__Klq_M%252C_&usg=__WcsxX7f3OEt0emsnww-E7_pLLjA%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjD3vKl-5LLAhWDlh4KHReKDvwQyjcINA&ei=5_nOVoPPHoOtepeUuuAP#imgrc=AZvt6zcocCOqeM%3A

Regards
DL

I have no idea how being white in a rich country affects intelligence. Can you please explain this ? I also have no idea how the graph ties in with your comment.

Cheers,
D.M.

Gnostic Bishop
26-02-2016, 03:45 AM
I have no idea how being white in a rich country affects intelligence. Can you please explain this ? I also have no idea how the graph ties in with your comment.

Cheers,
D.M.

The graph shows, in a general way, that some races are ahead of others in I.Q. ratings.

It is a long issue to talk about. The fact that I was born white and in a wealthy nation where education was good has allowed my natural ability to come to as good a fruit as possible for myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2MtavwbxZY

People do not like the stats but they cannot refute them.

The only way I could have done better, possibly, was being born Asian.

Regards
DL

Rincewind
26-02-2016, 09:19 AM
People do not like the stats but they cannot refute them.

Since both race and intelligence are ill-defined terms there is nothing to refute.

Gnostic Bishop
26-02-2016, 09:25 AM
Since both race and intelligence are ill-defined terms there is nothing to refute.

Intelligent people can usually define those terms to a fairly close degree without a problem.

Regards
DL

Rincewind
26-02-2016, 09:36 AM
Intelligent people can usually define those terms to a fairly close degree without a problem.

Ok, give it your best shot.

Agent Smith
26-02-2016, 06:20 PM
GB - the hole you're digging yourself shows you're not half as smart as you think mate.
.... Probably best to give this silly thread a miss.

Gnostic Bishop
26-02-2016, 09:58 PM
Stupid is. Not knowing how to use a dictionary.

Regards
DL

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
26-02-2016, 10:13 PM
Ok, give it your best shot.

I will be interested in what kind of response you receive.

Rincewind
27-02-2016, 12:54 PM
I will be interested in what kind of response you receive.

To present, the response has been underwhelming.

Desmond
27-02-2016, 02:41 PM
Usually pretty funny when people overestimate their intellectual prowess

U_eZmEiyTo0

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
27-02-2016, 09:31 PM
Where has our intellectual friend Gnostic Bishop gone ?

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2016, 11:23 PM
Where has our intellectual friend Gnostic Bishop gone ?

Probably has a big round of other forums to spam check up on.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
27-02-2016, 11:53 PM
Probably has a big round of other forums to spam check up on.

Excellent news. Its good to see that he is spreading his wisdom far and wide.

Rincewind
27-02-2016, 11:56 PM
Excellent news. Its good to see that he is spreading his wisdom far and wide.

No doubt maximising his race's superior skills at acquiring and applying knowledge. If only he was asian he'd be finished already.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
28-02-2016, 12:16 AM
No doubt maximising his race's superior skills at acquiring and applying knowledge. If only he was asian he'd be finished already.

I know how the poor fellow feels. I constantly lament that as a white guy living in oz I will never be as smart as Kim Jong-un.

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2016, 11:54 PM
Social psychologist call it a moral tenet so I am not going to argue semantics and the meaning of words.

It is not semantics. It is quite an important difference whether a person is "moral" because they believe some principle they adhere to requires it or because they are just that sort of person. Among other things, you might rely more readily on the "principled" person if you don't know them well (just in case the other one is only disposed to play nice most of the time) but the well-dispositioned one might be less likely to incorrectly generalise a "principle" to a situation it doesn't really apply to.


This link should bring you up to speed and get us closer to the same page.

Hmmm. The video presents Harm/Care as distinct from reciprocity but you seem to be treating them as the same.


70% of us do seem to know what their first moral tenet is though.

Not really. He's talking about a principle that can be extracted from a moral statement someone makes. Whether they consistently believe that statement or whether it is consistent with other things they say is a different matter entirely.


I agree but to encourage a moral path says that the other path is not moral.

Seems a very black and white approach - either you are doing the right thing or you are doing the wrong thing. I think the virtue ethics crowd have it all over this kind of thinking with the different idea that an action can be praiseworthy without a failure to perform it necessarily deserving condemnation.


I know that we all feel for the victim, but at the same time, our duty is to have him or her also feel for the victims they may help create if they follow parental advice, and take the payoff for silence.

I think you should be leaving the victim alone. The perpetrator is having a jolly good laugh while you direct all this energy in the wrong direction.

Gnostic Bishop
09-03-2016, 11:18 PM
It is not semantics. It is quite an important difference whether a person is "moral" because they believe some principle they adhere to requires it or because they are just that sort of person. Among other things, you might rely more readily on the "principled" person if you don't know them well (just in case the other one is only disposed to play nice most of the time) but the well-dispositioned one might be less likely to incorrectly generalise a "principle" to a situation it doesn't really apply to.



Hmmm. The video presents Harm/Care as distinct from reciprocity but you seem to be treating them as the same.

To me they are as most of us are reactive and often reply in kind in either a good way or a bad way. IOW. Few bite the hand that feeds them and how one is approached will often determine if harm or care will be given to the other. Few turn the other cheek and I do not think wee should as that just encourages another slap.

Not really. He's talking about a principle that can be extracted from a moral statement someone makes. Whether they consistently believe that statement or whether it is consistent with other things they say is a different matter entirely.




Seems a very black and white approach - either you are doing the right thing or you are doing the wrong thing. I think the virtue ethics crowd have it all over this kind of thinking with the different idea that an action can be praiseworthy without a failure to perform it necessarily deserving condemnation.

Indeed. Put any issue on a moral graph with a dividing line between moral and immoral.

Few issues can sit on that centerline. If you have an example, I will be happy to have a look.



I think you should be leaving the victim alone. The perpetrator is having a jolly good laugh while you direct all this energy in the wrong direction.

True to a point but I cannot give energy against a perpetrator if he has bought his way to his next victim by paying off the last.

When the perpetrator buys his way out, I and no one else not directly involved is aware of him and we cannot do anything for or against him.

Regards
DL