(June 18, 2015 at 3:25 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:(June 17, 2015 at 9:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Correct.
The ages of the victims suggest that the priests were targeting young men...not young boys.
Do you approve of raping 13-year-old boys? Do you think it's more moral than raping 10-year-old boys?
Sorry that my hair-splitter is in the shop for sharpening. You'll need to distinguish the moral differences of the two acts, and you'll need to explain why you regard that difference as meaningful.
This entire "it wasn't pedophilia, raping adolescents is called hebephilia" entirely dodges the point that priests fucking young boys is a betrayal of the morality those priests are charged with exemplifying.
You're retreating to semantics because you know you've already lost the moral battle. Don't think you're fooling anyone here ... but in case you do think that, I will make sure to disabuse you of that notion.
To be fair, Randy has repeated multiple times already that the abuse was very wrong and that those priests should face criminal charges.
I don't think his point is that it's any less immoral.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
