Question for Catholics

[AwkwardlySet]

I don't think it's a problem with "people."

Puritanical moralizers are unlikely to be happy on Lit. They're not here to enjoy the site in the same way that 95% of the rest of the users are here to enjoy the site. They delight in tossing rocks into the pond and watching the ripples.

The rest is merely what happens all over the internet. Threads here WILL go off-topic; every forum sees that sort of behavior. But at their best, those derailments are organic and fun; MANY times I've discussed religion here, and it's normally kindly and informative. @jaF0 derails threads deliberately, and for no good reason. There's an agenda there.

Don't blame "people." Blame "the person."

I agree with you in principle. And I don't think I even have to point out how critical I am of moderating in AH. Without mincing words and more than anyone else here, I believe I have voiced criticism concerning jaF0, and some other visible and invisible mods too, about over-moderation, closing topics because of two problematic posts, and so on.

What I meant in this case is that there were some strong religious/political opinions voiced that will no doubt provoke equally strong replies. I know that our usual topics sometimes touch on political stuff. Sometimes we start discussing those things, mostly tangentially. And that's fine, IMO. I think there should be leeway in such things and that most of us here are sensible adults able to self-regulate posts and not let things go too far.

Yet a few posts in this thread were probably a bit too much in this sense. Even though I would have loved to discuss those undoubtedly political and religious topics in detail and without restriction with a few people here, going there on purpose is against the rules of the forum.
But more than that, it puts wind into the sails of these visible and invisible zealots who can't wait to close another topic or to edit another post. That's my whole point.

 

[Britva415]

I believe that institutions which shelter and enable abusers are bad, and that they act as multipliers for the harm those abusers do.

I believe that trying to argue on the basis of "priests are less likely to be abusers than the general population", without considering how the damage those priests do is amplified by the institution, is lazy and bad logic. As is calling people "manipulated" for considering those factors.

YMMV.

Exactly this

It doesn’t matter if they do it more than everyone else, what matters is how much worse it is when it’s them doing it.

Guy can’t seriously pretend “oh, everyone gets a free coverup and a new job with access to more kids in another town when they get caught.”

 

[TheLobster]

Exactly this

It doesn’t matter if they do it more than everyone else, what matters is how much worse it is when it’s them doing it.

Absolutely not. Calls to "consider how the damage is amplified by the institution" are just an innocuous-sounding vehicle through which you can insert your arbitrary, preexisting bias.

Unless you can quantify the importance of the institution, and therefore the "added badness" of their members doing a particular evil, this is essentially just a rhetorical that enables you to disregard data you don't like.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Absolutely not. Calls to "consider how the damage is amplified by the institution" are just an innocuous-sounding vehicle through which you can insert your arbitrary, preexisting bias.

Unless you can quantify the importance of the institution, and therefore the "added badness" of their members doing a particular evil, this is essentially just a rhetorical that enables you to disregard data you don't like.

For instance, as a case study, one might look through this article and linked sources, estimate the total number of victims, and compare to the number of victims at the point where the institution first became aware that he was not safe around children. Dividing the former by the latter then gives an estimate of how much the institution amplified the damage he did.

(Though I'm not sure it's fair to accuse people of "disregarding data we don't like" when no data was actually offered, just an assertion that it exists.)

But I'm going to bow out at this point rather than further strain the patience of AH members on this one.

 

[Britva415]

evil, this is essentially just a rhetorical that enables you to disregard data you don't like

I think you’re disregarding data you don’t like.