Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: G0atmaster on June 05, 2011, 08:48:52 am
-
It currently holds 27 million victims.
It claims over 1.2 million new victims every year.
In the United States alone, it is estimated that there are 250,000-500,000 new victims annually
It's a $32 Billion USD-per-year industry, and within 10 years, is expected to overtake drugs and firearms to become the largest criminal enterprise in the world.
And it is present in EVERY city in every country in the world.
It's likely affected someone you know.
Human sex trafficking is a worldwide problem that has grown more than tenfold in the past two years. It involves the abduction, movement, and forced prostitution of both minors and adults. It's modern-day slavery.
In the United states, there are only 71 FBI task forces dedicated to this problem. Despite being the fastest growing criminal enterprise, only $50 million USD is spent to combat it in the US, while nearly $20 BILLION is spent fighting drug trafficking.
Most victims are runaways. Most are in the foster care system. Most come from abusive homes. What this means is, more often than not, NO ONE is looking for them, NO ONE is there to take them back when rescued. Often, no one even reports them missing!!
In Cambodia, people will sell their children for a bag of rice. In the United States, it's usually for drugs. Imagine, a child traded for a bag of meth! A day's meal or a few days' fix. That's what kids are worth.
The average age of victims is 13 years old. But they can be as young as 6.
In my Senior year of high school, I met and spoke with a freshman girl whom I noticed was cutting herself. I spent an hour talking to her. Nearly three years later, we reconnected. She told me how that was the happiest she'd been in a long time.
As it turns out, she had been victimized from the time she was 4 until she was 15!! When I met her, she had been through suicide rehab programs several times, she was struggling with severe self-injury and severe anorexia. She was the most selfless person I had ever met, which I thought was amazing, until I realized it was because she had been told all her life that she wasn't worth the air she breathed. She got out of her situation, and is getting the help she needs, but until recently, there wasn't much help out there for her to get.
That's changing because of an organization called "Courage to be You." They're dedicated to building homes for victims of this abomination.
Generally, the victims are runaways, from abusive homes, trying to escape. Thus, they have nowhere to go back to. US Law Enforcement agencies typically send the victims to Juvenile Hall, for the sake of keeping them safe from their pimps and abductors. They are treated almost like criminals themselves! They are, in some cases, be sent to shelters wholly unequipped to handle the type of psychological trauma the victims are left with. 90% of victims get no after-care whatsoever, and are often left to seek and pay for counseling, health, and other necessary services themselves.
Courage to be You, Inc. is a non-profit organization building group-run safehouses for victims to stay, and be rehabilitated. They work with local and federal law enforcement, and are spreading worldwide. They currently have a home nearly ready for operation in Sacramento, and are building one in Tanzania. They will soon be spreading to, and have begun operations in, Hawaii and India. They want a house in every city in the US where there is an FBI taskforce present, and then more worldwide.
Currently, there's a project being put on by a company called Vivint, where they will be giving more than $1.2 million dollars away to the top-picked charities in the contest. C2BU is one of the entries. You can vote for it by clicking the following link;
http://www.vivint.com/givesbackproject/charity/296
PLEASE VOTE!! This organization deserves to win! They will do so much good from it...
My friend, whom I spoke of earlier, is being helped by these people.
To learn more about this, here are some informational links:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/human_trafficking/initiatives
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/human_trafficking
http://www.couragetobeyou.org/learn-more/
http://helpstopchildslavery.org/ChildSlaverytoday.asp
Here's a video produced by C2BU that depicts the horrors of Human Trafficking. It's pretty graphic. Not recommended for anyone under 13, definitely not for the faint of heart:
http://www.vimeo.com/6881264
Here's a link to the story of a girl that the events in the video pretty accurately reflect:
http://theydontbelongtoyou.blogspot.com/2010/03/for-terrifying-8-days-vicki-zito-had-no.html
Now, educate yourselves. Something needs to be done about this. Now. Most people don't know enough about it to care. Most people wouldn't have a second thought other than "That's F***ked up."
What about you?
TL;DR: People all over the world, in every city, as young as 6 years old, are being forcibly sold for sex as we speak. What are we going to do about it?
-
Again, vote here!
http://www.vivint.com/givesbackproject/charity/296
-
TL;DR: People all over the world, in every city, are being sold for sex as we speak. What are we going to do about it?
(http://www.wallpapersweb.com/data/media/21/Atomic%20Explosion.jpg)
-
"the fastest growing criminal enterprise"
sort of like how scientology is the worlds fastest growing religion, i.e. another way of saying it's a very small criminal enterprise, after all if you have 10 new people involved it had tripled.
-
I don't think bellitling a problem like this is the best approach. I approve of Goat's message.
-
Did you miss the part about "Soon to overtake drugs and firearms as the world's #1?"
-
I don't think bellitling a problem like this is the best approach. I approve of Goat's message.
I approve both Goat's message and pointing out use of loaded language. It's an even bigger problem when heard from those we agree with. There is no belittling here.
-
I don't think bellitling a problem like this is the best approach. I approve of Goat's message.
I approve both Goat's message and pointing out use of loaded language. It's an even bigger problem when heard from those we agree with. There is no belittling here.
I failed to see any kind of loaded language, but I did see belittling and smug silliness (the nuke mushroom? really?)
-
It's a $32 Billion USD-per-year industry, and within 10 years, is expected to overtake drugs and firearms to become the largest criminal enterprise in the world.
Troll statistics, not that accurate data would be available for this kind of thing anyway. Past trends need not indicate future trends or whatever. $32 bil is pretty small. Drug sales are ten times that.
Not to ding you though Goatmaster. It's a good cause.
-
I question your statistical sources. What are they?
-
yay cheap hookers!
TL;DR: People all over the world, in every city, are being sold for sex as we speak. What are we going to do about it?
(http://www.wallpapersweb.com/data/media/21/Atomic%20Explosion.jpg)
also this (is there a problem nukes wont solve?)
thirdly legalize drugs and throw the money you would otherwise throw at busting drug dealers at busting the exploitationists. then i can pick up my dope at the 7/11 and not have to worry about getting shot. and the cops can now buy bullets to shoot pimps with.
also this problem aint new, ever seen taxi driver?
-
You are right, it's not really new.. but it's getting huge and it's incredibly sick and wrong. The idea of it simply pisses me off. (Especially since I have a baby girl due in less than 8 weeks.)
I work with these guys often.. they are making quite a difference too. http://www.iempathize.org/ (http://www.iempathize.org/)
-
I failed to see any kind of loaded language
:wtf:
really?
-
I don't think bellitling a problem like this is the best approach. I approve of Goat's message.
I approve both Goat's message and pointing out use of loaded language. It's an even bigger problem when heard from those we agree with. There is no belittling here.
I failed to see any kind of loaded language, but I did see belittling and smug silliness (the nuke mushroom? really?)
Well when he asked what we can do about it, nuking the world is a possibility. Death solves all problems, no man no problem.
-
Obvious silly joke is obvious. And silly.
-
I don't think bellitling a problem like this is the best approach. I approve of Goat's message.
I approve both Goat's message and pointing out use of loaded language. It's an even bigger problem when heard from those we agree with. There is no belittling here.
I failed to see any kind of loaded language, but I did see belittling and smug silliness (the nuke mushroom? really?)
Well when he asked what we can do about it, nuking the world is a possibility. Death solves all problems, no man no problem.
We just need someone who has nukes and who wants to nuke ze world.
-
Description: The purpose of Courage to Be You is to educate and inform the local community of the children who are being trafficked for sex here locally in Sacramento.
Typos. "Sex" being capitalized might be stylistic, but if so, it looks pretty bad.
-
:nono:
He brings up a topic that actually is a large and growing problem in the world and this is the response it gets on GD...
Like I said, I've worked very closely with the guys at iEmpathize. Brad Riley (Their founder) has been to and helped rescue kids in places where this is going on many, many times. In fact, in the U.S. this happens very often among truck drivers. The girls are forced to go to truck stops and go truck to truck servicing the drivers who will pay... THESE ARE GIRLS THAT WERE STOLEN FROM THEIR FAMILIES.
In the U.S. iEmpathize works to raise awareness of the problem. We were putting on an event in December of last year when a young woman got really angry at us for doing it. After some conversation we realized she was angry because she had been stuck in that world for years until she was rescued. Brad told me that sort of things happens nearly everywhere they go.
Seriously... Goatmaster posts about an absolutely horrifying problem and you guys nitpick his language....
I know, I know.. I should expect this kind of absolute stupidity from GD..
EDIT: Had to fix my typos lest you just nitpick them...
-
I'm inclined to back mjn here. Of all the things to do regarding this, taking the piss shouldn't really be up there in people's list of priorities. iEmpathize is now up one vote.
-
Hey, I just want to know the statistics sources. Goatmaster has something of a history of critical thinking issues in previous posts. I'd rather not be spoonfed possible lies.
-
GOOGLE
Or go to the iEmpathize website (http://www.iEmpathize.com) > Nav Bar > iExplore > Explore the issue.
(Can't directly link it because it's some flash thing.)
It doesn't give specific statistics, but it does give some ballpark numbers. I am not trying to rally for this organization specifically. I just know them well and happened to have worked with them often...
EDIT: I lied.. seems like there are some slightly more statistics further on in the iExplore section.
-
So basically, they're making it up. Good cause, bad methods, you know the drill.
-
Nice.. you didn't even look at the website. L:ASDKJGFOPDI I want to flame you harsly right now...
http://www.iempathize.org/Support/Explore_the_Issue.pdf (http://www.iempathize.org/Support/Explore_the_Issue.pdf)
It lists sources. READ DAMNIT OR GTFO!
I mean seriously. How the hell do you go about arguing things without even clicking on the easily placed links. I made it so EASY. You didn't even have to google search!
-
So basically, they're making it up. Good cause, bad methods, you know the drill.
What the **** dude, there are sources right there and they're reputable. UNICEF for one.
-
A quick google search of 'child sex trafficking statistics' brings these up in the first few links. Did you even try?
http://www.crisisaid.org/ICAPDF/Trafficking/traffickstats.pdf (http://www.crisisaid.org/ICAPDF/Trafficking/traffickstats.pdf)
http://www.dreamcenter.org/new/images/outreach/RescueProject/stats.pdf (http://www.dreamcenter.org/new/images/outreach/RescueProject/stats.pdf)
-
Even if those source are just some lies....it is true that trafficking is one really ****ed up issue. And those links from mixael makes the topic even more cruel.
And I trust the UNICEF-dudes.
-
What worries me a hell of a lot more is a religious organisation picking on the vulnerable.
The purpose of Courage House is to provide a safe, loving environment, with a comprehensive, holistic approach in mental health, psychosocial and educational services, in an RCL-12 group home setting for minors aged 11-17 who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation.
However, Courage House will be more than a typical “group home,” it will be a place where hope is given, healing is offered, and lives are restored by people who love and believe in them. The young women who come to Courage House will receive tangible resources to equip, encourage, and empower them to discover and fulfill their unique purpose. This goal is based on the vision that every person is uniquely created on purpose for a purpose. Commercial sexual exploitation robs these young victims of their identity, their value, and self-esteem. Restoring their identity as a valued child of God, with a purpose unique only to them, is the focus at Courage House. To do this, we will provide every possible opportunity to each female victim to find safety, security, hope, and love while offering an array of services targeting trauma and sexual exploitation treatment, recovery, and prevention.
The Our Beliefs (http://www.couragetobeyou.org/about/) section is especially sickening. If they really want to do something good for these kids how about not forcing religion down their throats. Absolutely not voting for this.
-
What worries me a hell of a lot more is a religious organisation picking on the vulnerable.
The purpose of Courage House is to provide a safe, loving environment, with a comprehensive, holistic approach in mental health, psychosocial and educational services, in an RCL-12 group home setting for minors aged 11-17 who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation.
However, Courage House will be more than a typical “group home,” it will be a place where hope is given, healing is offered, and lives are restored by people who love and believe in them. The young women who come to Courage House will receive tangible resources to equip, encourage, and empower them to discover and fulfill their unique purpose. This goal is based on the vision that every person is uniquely created on purpose for a purpose. Commercial sexual exploitation robs these young victims of their identity, their value, and self-esteem. Restoring their identity as a valued child of God, with a purpose unique only to them, is the focus at Courage House. To do this, we will provide every possible opportunity to each female victim to find safety, security, hope, and love while offering an array of services targeting trauma and sexual exploitation treatment, recovery, and prevention.
The Our Beliefs (http://www.couragetobeyou.org/about/) section is especially sickening. If they really want to do something good for these kids how about not forcing religion down their throats. Absolutely not voting for this.
And I thought Scientology would try something like this....
-
I like where this thread is going.
-
While that may be an issue.. there is the problem that (at least in the U.S.) the government is hardly doing anything about the issue and so these kids are left with whatever organization will do something for them.
Stance on religion aside (let's not turn this into another "Today in American Christianity" (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=76373.0)), that is certainly better than a life of sex slavery.
-
While that may be an issue.. there is the problem that (at least in the U.S.) the government is hardly doing anything about the issue and so these kids are left with whatever organization will do something for them.
Uhh, let's say Europe isn't that better. I would say trafficking is everywhere, you only have to dig deep enough.
There's not much trafficking in Germany (according to statistics)....but it is still there. I mean, you just have to see St. Pauli in Hamburg, it is a goddamn place which needs to be lit up.
And the governments are doing nearly nothing.
-
A quick google search of 'child sex trafficking statistics' brings these up in the first few links. Did you even try?
http://www.crisisaid.org/ICAPDF/Trafficking/traffickstats.pdf (http://www.crisisaid.org/ICAPDF/Trafficking/traffickstats.pdf)
http://www.dreamcenter.org/new/images/outreach/RescueProject/stats.pdf (http://www.dreamcenter.org/new/images/outreach/RescueProject/stats.pdf)
Those are meaningless. The first one lists more anecdotes then it does statistics! The statistics it does give are overwhelmingly about "at-risk", not actually engaged in. The second one gives such wildly varying answers (4 to 27 million, that's a variance of 675%!) as to be laughable, and the other statistics are dated (three years at best) and show incredibly regular patterns of growth (100 thousand every year, sure, let's go with that) that indicate either outright laziness or lies. It also goes back to the at-risk fallacy, only it admits the data it is using is over a decade old.
And you call this **** reliable?
It wants to shock me to get me to donate. It's pure scare tactics and I will not engage with an organization that attempts them.
EDIT: Even if the hundred thousand a year statistic is true, it's A: at best the industry is in slow rather than explosive growth and B: most likely not large enough to match proportionally with actual population growth, thus the problem is in decline already.
EDIT the second: And also, Karaj actually raised a pertinent point: this is essentially saying that "their masters are evil, therefore their submission to them is evil; our master is good, therefore submission to him is good"; where is the option for "we should not have masters; we should not submit"? From whence comes the evil of this practice?
-
You forgot the third .pdf I linked. Also, you forgot to google search. Also you forgot-
Meh, I'm done with this guy. He obviously could care a less about these kids and would rather argue statistics. Whatever makes him feel good I guess. /added to ignore list.
THIS IS NOT A TOPIC ABOUT RELIGION Also, I find it entirely detestable that some would rather get in a fuss over an organization that rescues kids out of sex slavery just because the organization is going to teach them some religion.. Many of you know my spiritual stance.. THIS IS NOT A TOPIC ABOUT RELIGION. I would rather have these kids be taught any major religion in the world than to be forced to live the life of sexual slavery...THIS IS NOT A TOPIC ABOUT RELIGION
If the local governments would do their job, the issue would be moot.
Also... THIS IS NOT A TOPIC ABOUT RELIGION
Trying to stop the derail before it starts...
-
+1 to the shocked into action rather than reasoned to it category, I guess.
(Also, the third PDF doesn't actually work, as when I try to access its direct sources most of the links are broken or use information over a decade old. Even UNICEF went for the emotional appeal on its front page, admittedly flanked by useful information on top and bottom, but...come on guys, you're supposed to be respectable.)
-
+1 to the shocked into action rather than reasoned to it category, I guess.
So glad I saw this before I found the ignore user button... (Note to self.. Profile > modify profile)
Dude, your just being a troll. It's a simple as that. There's plenty of evidence and statistics. You obviously haven't even gone to look for it yourself. I don't need to prove anything to you (even though that's the attitude you are taking). I've worked with this organization (iEmpathize). I've talked to girls who were trapped in this life before being rescued. I've talked with Brad Riley who's been to and helped shut down brothels. (By 'talked with' I mean, have' become good friends with' considering there's a highway intersection here in KC that is known for being a very popular child sex trade location. They come to KC often.) Scared into it? No... Actually care about someone other than myself? Very much yes.
To be clear, I don't care whether or not any of you donate or do a damn thing about. You want to argue semantics and statistics, be my guest.
I'm talking about YOUNG KIDS being forced into sex slavery. They are essentially raped multiple times a day and have no way out. That is so incredibly sick and wrong. Number shouldn't even ****ing matter. If it's only three kids in the whole damned world, I would try to do something about it.
-
Dude, your just being a troll.
I've actually engaged with your arguments. I asked for statistics, you gave me statistics, I critiqued them, you ragequit the discussion.
I have, at all times, attempted to discuss the issue on points, to talk about the evidence you are using. You have, at all times, reacted out of anger and admit as much with every post where you lapse into angry gibberish or claim you're resisting the urge to flame or actually do flame.
If you're getting trolled, you're doing it to yourself.
It's a simple as that. There's plenty of evidence and statistics.
Old evidence, bad evidence. If this is a terrible problem today, then I'd like to see evidence from today, or at least the last year. As it stands, it looks like people stopped even being able to track the issue three years ago.
You obviously haven't even gone to look for it yourself.
I have made statements about the statistics offered including date of compilation, pattern of growth, and variance that would only be possible by viewing them. This is a blatant lie.
I don't need to prove anything to you (even though that's the attitude you are taking).
Then why are you in this discussion? Why did you take it up?
I've worked with this organization (iEmpathize). I've talked to girls who were trapped in this life before being rescued. I've talked with Brad Riley who's been to and helped shut down brothels. (By 'talked with' I mean, have' become good friends with' considering there's a highway intersection here in KC that is known for being a very popular child sex trade location. They come to KC often.)
So in so many words you're biased. Also, see the nature of anecdotal evidence vs. useful science.
Scared into it? No... Actually care about someone other than myself? Very much yes.
And **** you too, sir, for pretending I lack empathy. You protest slavery and perhaps even work against it in a peripheral fashion. I donate time to education and often to the poor of Tijuana, building housing. Which of us is engaged in servicing a more basic need?
-
Guys cool it...
A quick google search of 'child sex trafficking statistics' brings these up in the first few links. Did you even try?
http://www.crisisaid.org/ICAPDF/Trafficking/traffickstats.pdf (http://www.crisisaid.org/ICAPDF/Trafficking/traffickstats.pdf)
http://www.dreamcenter.org/new/images/outreach/RescueProject/stats.pdf (http://www.dreamcenter.org/new/images/outreach/RescueProject/stats.pdf)
^ He didn't post "These are statistics so you should donate," he posted "These are statistics so you should investigate for yourself." But instead of doing that you're wasting time shooting down a "quick google search."
-
Hahaha what the **** guys.
Everyone and their mom knows that sex trafficking is a big and growing problem. Even ****ing National Geographic is on it. If you don't believe it's a problem, go read up, you'll figure out it's a problem pretty quickly.
What a pointless thing to have an argument about.
-
He didn't post "These are statistics so you should donate," he posted "These are statistics so you should investigate for yourself." But instead of doing that you're wasting time shooting down a "quick google search."
In case you couldn't tell, those two overlap. Everything else you'll search for statistics overlaps. Everyone cites the same sources, though some have the grace to cite only the more recent ones and not the ten-years-or-more studies. This is a little worrying in and of itself, because it suggests not many people are looking at the issue.
A lot of places on the first page of Google search offer statistics of their own but don't cite sources. Even the wikipedia article's first two statements of extent are tagged "citation needed". The others for the article are sources that were already in the two .pdfs already discussed with about three exceptions, and of the two studies mentioned that took place within the last two years, one was criticized as being "bogus science", and the other, from the World Bank, dealt only with the economic impact.
If it exists it's a problem, but I'd like to know how much of a problem, kthnx? I have a limited amount of time and resources.
-
Obvious silly joke is obvious. And silly.
Who said I was joking? :wtf:
I've decided to follow Nuke's philosophy on such matters these days.
-
Stance on religion aside (let's not turn this into another "Today in American Christianity" (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=76373.0)), that is certainly better than a life of sex slavery.
In theory (since I haven't a clue of what's actually going on.... we could be stepping upon another sexual scandal within religion), I absolutely agree.
EDIT: I actually also happen to agree with NGTM's quest for a little more skepticism and rationality instead of taking whichever kind of thesis down our throats, under the threat of being called a "troll" or an insensitive douchebag. These organizations are constantly making this kind of tactic, to scare the hell out of their audience with a big "emergency", and then induce this behavior of belittling morally anyone who dares question their numbers, as if the science underneath these numbers has anything to do with the moral feelings this despicable crime induces in our most basic moral instincts.
-
Hahaha what the **** guys.
Everyone and their mom knows that sex trafficking is a big and growing problem. Even ****ing National Geographic is on it. If you don't believe it's a problem, go read up, you'll figure out it's a problem pretty quickly.
What a pointless thing to have an argument about.
This is exactly what I was failing to say, I guess. It seems pretty dang silly to argue this... Which I why I don't feel like I need to prove anything. In fact, given the situation, I think he should need to prove it's -not- happening. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Stance on religion aside (let's not turn this into another "Today in American Christianity" (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=76373.0)), that is certainly better than a life of sex slavery.
In theory (since I haven't a clue of what's actually going on.... we could be stepping upon another sexual scandal within religion), I absolutely agree.
THIS IS NOT A TOPIC ABOUT RELIGION However, if you disallow religious organizations from doing humanitarian work simply out of fear of sexual scandal... then there would be a lot of people without help. It's pretty dang obvious that governments aren't doing a damned thing.
-
Yeah Mixael, way to ****ing misread what I ****ing said. You just read the exact opposite of what I ****ing said. Whatever.
-
Obvious silly joke is obvious. And silly.
Who said I was joking? :wtf:
I've decided to follow Nuke's philosophy on such matters these days.
yea i never joke about matters of the nuke. it is mankinds greatest achievement. forget the theory and the physics and the concept of deterrent and tactics. what it really is, is the means to self annihilate, the means to teach humanity the ultimate lesson. but we shun them and fear them and try to dismantle them to try to reduce their numbers. its quite sad. enjoy your status quo.
-
Not to scare you people:
http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/2468636/
But there remains a reason for my sincere skepticism for such groups "claiming" to fight child trafficking or any of the sort, and I'm going as far to say that we should not only double-check the sources, but place the studies under severe scruitiny. Trafficking is a growing problem, but it's also a great tool for exploitation by "advocates" and "friends" who want extra money and fame.
I think its pretty ****ed up to exploit a pretty ugly problem for political expediency, and have little toleration or love for it. In fact, I find advocacy groups, politicians, and law enforcement who exploit this to their own ends no better than the monsters they claim to fight.
This sounds [the OPs article] more like overblown fluff, then lets say the truly shocking documentary recently touring parts of the nation about the child soldiers being used in African countries, known as Invisible Children.
-
It's pretty dang obvious that governments aren't doing a damned thing.
I'm bewildered that I've somehow been drawn into this mess... but as I've arrived....
Governments actually ARE fairly active in the tracking and enforcement of provisions against human trafficking (not just sex-related human trafficking), but it is a massive problem which doesn't get near the press time that drugs get until a boat (truck, plane) full of people arrives at your doorstep and suddenly your immigration authorities have to deal with it. Internally, it's a damn hard problem to even find, and prosecution can be even more difficult.
All of that just adds to the lack of awareness on the issue (which this thread has demonstrated quite spectacularly). But governments are doing quite a bit more than not a damned thing.
-
Dateline did a good documentary on this stuff happening in the Ukraine, I saw it on Youtube. The authorities were certainly aware of the problem and had been making arrests but apparently they had a hard time building a conclusive case against people they were pretty sure were guilty. Which is strange considering some NBC reporters managed to schedule a meeting with a trafficker.
There's child prostitution too, and that's entirely legal in places like Thailand. Parents will sell their kids off to support themselves.
This sounds [the OPs article] more like overblown fluff, then lets say the truly shocking documentary recently touring parts of the nation about the child soldiers being used in African countries, known as Invisible Children.
I think this is a much more serious and preventable problem than child soldiers or whatever. Being a child sex slave will really **** you up for life, and it happens all around the world. And many if not most child soldiers are actually volunteers. Not to start a my-humanitarian-crisis-is-worse-than-yours debate.
-
While that may be an issue.. there is the problem that (at least in the U.S.) the government is hardly doing anything about the issue and so these kids are left with whatever organization will do something for them.
What exactly would be your position on this matter if Scientology was picking up these kids and making large numbers of them members?
-
It's common knowledge that Hamas is a great social institution with great works for the population. And no, this is not sarcasm, it's the sheer truth.
-
Id pick joining a crazy cult any day over being homeless with no skills or education after being psychologically traumatized all my childhood.
-
Id pick joining a crazy cult any day over being homeless with no skills or education after being psychologically traumatized all my childhood.
Are you sure you are talking about two different things at all? :lol:
-
While that may be an issue.. there is the problem that (at least in the U.S.) the government is hardly doing anything about the issue and so these kids are left with whatever organization will do something for them.
What exactly would be your position on this matter if Scientology was picking up these kids and making large numbers of them members?
I'd be a hell of a lot less favorable than with vanilla religion, if only because Scientology takes active steps to control and contain its membership (and to discourage their departure) which most other religious groups don't.
-
Id pick joining a crazy cult any day over being homeless with no skills or education after being psychologically traumatized all my childhood.
Why does it have to just be A or B? Why not campaign for C. Take care of the kids and don't try to take advantage of them by foisting religion on them when they are at their lowest ebb?
-
Yeah well but Battuta is speaking about "lesser evils". You know, the kind of grey that liberals (in american terms) just love.
-
Id pick joining a crazy cult any day over being homeless with no skills or education after being psychologically traumatized all my childhood.
Why does it have to just be A or B? Why not campaign for C. Take care of the kids and don't try to take advantage of them by foisting religion on them when they are at their lowest ebb?
I'll happily campaign for C but I'm not going to turn down some A on the side.
-
Did this just turn into a relationship thread?
-
Did this just turn into a relationship thread?
Yes.
-
Did this just turn into a relationship thread?
Look honey, a little C+A is just part of what a man needs.
-
FYI, many of my statistics come from the FB-Freaking-I, so stfu about untrustworthy sources.
Secondly, follow some of the links I posted to get more information. That's where I got more of what I posted.
Courage To Be You brings FBI agents out to speak on this matter when they do awareness events. I'm pretty freaking sure that means they're reliable.
Christian or not, no one else is building homes for these victims. And last time I checked, Christianity was not thought of by-and-large as a dangerous cult, unlike scientology.
I am appalled. I thought you guys were better than this. Of all the things to nitpick on rather than doing your own research...
I'm disgusted. This is why the problem is as big as it is.
This is bull****.
-
Don't be mad Goat, it is a worthy campaign to make. Do not take these discussions seriously, they are just silly back and forths.
-
FYI, many of my statistics come from the FB-Freaking-I, so stfu about untrustworthy sources.
Their own site on the subject isn't terribly transparent. It's mostly listing indictments and convictions; success stories. The numbers given are rather low for a problem as large as claimed.
Secondly, follow some of the links I posted to get more information. That's where I got more of what I posted.
I did. I see very little on the subject I haven't talked about already. The problem is, at the least, no longer being actively tracked, which is kind of worrisome.
Courage To Be You brings FBI agents out to speak on this matter when they do awareness events. I'm pretty freaking sure that means they're reliable.
I don't doubt the agents speak truly of their personal experiences, but the knowledgebase the FBI will admit is small even by those standards. The numbers given are, again, low; 600 convictions, approximately twice that number children saved, etc., over the course of several years. This does not seem like pervasive knowledge of something as big as they claim it is, with tens of thousands of people being imported for the purpose each year, otherwise a lot more people would be going to jail. Either the problem is smaller, the effort is not effective, or the effort is not being applied.
The only way I can judge which is with outside sources which don't appear to exist. That's rather frustrating.
-
Dateline did a good documentary on this stuff happening in the Ukraine, I saw it on Youtube. The authorities were certainly aware of the problem and had been making arrests but apparently they had a hard time building a conclusive case against people they were pretty sure were guilty. Which is strange considering some NBC reporters managed to schedule a meeting with a trafficker.
There's child prostitution too, and that's entirely legal in places like Thailand. Parents will sell their kids off to support themselves.
This sounds [the OPs article] more like overblown fluff, then lets say the truly shocking documentary recently touring parts of the nation about the child soldiers being used in African countries, known as Invisible Children.
I think this is a much more serious and preventable problem than child soldiers or whatever. Being a child sex slave will really **** you up for life, and it happens all around the world. And many if not most child soldiers are actually volunteers. Not to start a my-humanitarian-crisis-is-worse-than-yours debate.
The point is we have tangible evidence that shows actually how deranged the problem in Uganda, but it's one example of real child trafficking in action. Instead, here we're faced with a claim backpedaled with a bunch of sites and statistics from the FBI, but my question remains if the material is nothing more than "shock" tactics that so-called advocates use to scare people into giving them money and power.
Combined with NGTM-1R points and important emphasis, a lot of the statistics need to be properly verfied.
To reach my own point, yes, I'm delibrately deflating Goatmasters' hsyteria because its the exact opposite of how to deal with the problem, especially when a number of these organizations have been involved with doctoring evidence to pass as "statistics," this was an issue that was recently brought up at a human trafficking symposium hosted by my university's peace and justic studies.
-
AtomicClucker can speak for himself. I just want to say thanks to G0at. For his good deed for a good cause. And for creating what rapidly blossomed into a five page thread on GD.
-
Yeah.. I pretty much decided that I don't need to prove anything to these yahoos. If they want to argue statistics and research while real people are hurting... then let them be judged accordingly by someone more righteous than I.
-
To reach my own point, yes, I'm delibrately deflating Goatmasters' hsyteria
:jaw:
To read your words literally, you are saying what G0at has claimed is inaccurate at best and deliberate falsehood that he stupidly believed at worst. oo... k, moving on...
because its the exact opposite of how to deal with the problem,
So, great one, lead the way... oh wait, how did you say to fix this problem again?
especially when a number of these organizations have been involved with doctoring evidence to pass as "statistics," this was an issue that was recently brought up at a human trafficking symposium hosted by my university's peace and justic studies.
Which, obviously, because it was brought up at a symposium hosted by your university, means it's true. While statistics by relatively well-trusted organizations are not. :wtf: Yes, I know you didn't say that that constituted proof of your claims. You also didn't give any proof. wow EDIT: In other words, in the said symposium, what facts were discussed and what were the sources backing said facts ... not asking for a transcript, but we don't even see an overview here... nothing on radar, flying blind.
-
Yes, please, o wise and wonderful world-fixer. Tell us how you would go about getting help, as opposed to getting folks to see that the problem is big, and bad, and worth doing something about?
-
Get people to see the problem is big, and bad, and worth doing something about without lying about it.
This is like claiming that Osama Bin Laden ****ed embryonic goats in order to get people to dislike him. The problem is worth dealing with on its own but when you lie about it people start to wonder if YOU are trustworthy. And when you're talking about someone who is going to be dealing with abused children, I sure as **** want to know I'm not dealing with someone who is a liar.
-
Well yeah but that's just human nature. It's pathetic but it is what it is. All these organizations have to engage in this type of ****ty marketing or else they dont' get any attention to them. The most glaring example is when Greenpeace goes about saying that Apple is the worst company in the world in X, Y and Zed and then they fudge every kind of statistics or blatantly lie about it just to get their point. And then they achieve their goal, everyone hears about this in the news because it becomes newsworthy.... if it was about how HP was the worst pc company in terms of eco, no one would care, and no one would do anything about it.
Unfortunately it works. Apple, for instance, has since then always focused on their ecological merits too, and market them (since their market does care about these things). And I'm talking about a pc corporation, but you can just pretty much generalize this to every kind of ecological or human problem, and this is the only tactic that seems to get enough money and attention.
Yeah, it's abhorrent and it crosses my nerves as well, but that's the problem with dealing with mammals...
-
This is like claiming that Osama Bin Laden ****ed embryonic goats in order to get people to dislike him.
I've seen a lot of wierd **** on the internet but this just about takes the cake. This along with the pic of the Garfield guy with a robot torso and dripping vagina squeezing a dog to death while it bursts apart spewing feces.
I don't see how such a feat would move people to dislike a dude; rather, if it were physically possible I would expect admiration to follow and the creation of a new sub-subgenre of porn.
-
This is like claiming that Osama Bin Laden ****ed embryonic goats in order to get people to dislike him.
Who knew he was for abortion. :P
-
This is like claiming that Osama Bin Laden ****ed embryonic goats in order to get people to dislike him.
I've seen a lot of wierd **** on the internet but this just about takes the cake. This along with the pic of the Garfield guy with a robot torso and dripping vagina squeezing a dog to death while it bursts apart spewing feces.
I don't see how such a feat would move people to dislike a dude; rather, if it were physically possible I would expect admiration to follow and the creation of a new sub-subgenre of porn.
You're not thinking with muslim eyes, which was his point. I think he's exagerating here, but not saying fully silly things.
-
As a person who works within a Children's department in the UK, I can categorically state the child trafficking is very real. However, I don't think it's a big a problem here as GOatmaster suggests it is in the US(?). And I do know of a few cases in my area that the children are used in sex traffic, however in a majority of cases they are usually brought in (many Vietnamese) to tend to Cannabis farms.
-
This actually got me a tad worried as well - fortunately the Aussie government seem more or less on top of it, and even the worst estimates say there're no more than a thousand women at any one time in Australia (and more realistic estimates suggest between one and four hundred). Still a serious issue, but not as bad as these stats seem to imply might be the case elsewhere.
-
even the worst estimates say there're no more than a thousand women at any one time in Australia (and more realistic estimates suggest between one and four hundred)
No wonder you're so horny.
-
I just realized a thread about child molestation is not a place for creepy male-male sexual innuendo.
-
*paaaaaffffffff*****
-
Well yeah but that's just human nature. It's pathetic but it is what it is. All these organizations have to engage in this type of ****ty marketing or else they dont' get any attention to them.
So true... but it depends on the target audience. In this community, C2BU's effort would be much better spent trying to paint child abusers as religious fundamentalists. :P Even then, they'd probably get busted by GB or someone.
-
... and rightly so... religious "fundamentalism" had little to do with the sexual scandal within the catholic church. It had all to do with the internal culture among sexually repressed priests. Zizek talked about this, and I agree with him that such phenomena has to do with a barbaric aspect of human tribalism, which is whenever you enter a kind of a group, you have to indulge in practices that are anthitethical to the deontological aspects of the group itself, secretly and humiliatingly. This humiliation is required, so you are accepted as "one of them". Unfortunately, in priesthood, it seems that the selected practice is child abuse. This is a complex phenomena, but we are derailing the thread :p
-
Zizek talked about this, and I agree with him that such phenomena has to do with a barbaric aspect of human tribalism, which is whenever you enter a kind of a group, you have to indulge in practices that are anthitethical to the deontological aspects of the group itself, secretly and humiliatingly. This humiliation is required, so you are accepted as "one of them".
This sounds suspiciously like sociophilosophical bull****. Having never actually heard of Zizek before and Google'd him, I'd say it's confirmed as sociophilosophical bull****. It's this kind of nonsense that gives sociology and psychology a bad reputation as soft sciences. Not a testable hypothesis in the entirety of that written diarrhea.
/derail.
Oops, don't look now, my contempt for philosophy is showing :P
-
Zizek talked about this, and I agree with him that such phenomena has to do with a barbaric aspect of human tribalism, which is whenever you enter a kind of a group, you have to indulge in practices that are anthitethical to the deontological aspects of the group itself, secretly and humiliatingly. This humiliation is required, so you are accepted as "one of them".
This sounds suspiciously like sociophilosophical bull****. Having never actually heard of Zizek before and Google'd him, I'd say it's confirmed as sociophilosophical bull****. It's this kind of nonsense that gives sociology and psychology a bad reputation as soft sciences. Not a testable hypothesis in the entirety of that written diarrhea.
Yeah, that's equally possible. There are some things out there that are quite "soft", and I'm happy to agree with that assessment, and join your skepticism. But it's not that I've heard a better and even, gasp, sympathetic to the priests, explanation of this utter puzzling and barbaric phenomena.
-
Yeah, that's equally possible. There are some things out there that are quite "soft", and I'm happy to agree with that assessment, and join your skepticism. But it's not that I've heard a better and even, gasp, sympathetic to the priests, explanation of this utter puzzling and barbaric phenomena.
How about this: denying that Homo sapiens is a species that includes sexual activity in a wide range of behaviours (and not just exclusive to reproduction) and attempting to [forcibly] abolish those behaviours may lead to their hidden expression in ways that are socially deviant.
No sociophilosophical bull**** required. In fact, that is testable (in a practical sense, if not ethical).
-
Jesus Christ have you seen the things chimpanzees do to frogs
that **** is ****ed up
-
Hey, MP, if you leave out your irritation and actually read what I wrote, then you'll see that you are just repeating what I said previously, with the exception that "my" explanation was more complete, since I started to write with that obviosity in mind. Here, let me help you in your reading exercise:
It had all to do with the internal culture among sexually repressed priests.
Mkay?
-
Jesus Christ have you seen the things chimpanzees do to frogs
that **** is ****ed up
omg, what you made me seee MY EEEEYEESSS :lol:
-
Hey, MP, if you leave out your irritation and actually read what I wrote, then you'll see that you are just repeating what I said previously, with the exception that "my" explanation was more complete, since I started to write with that obviosity in mind. Here, let me help you in your reading exercise:
No, you're explanation talked about tribalism, philosophy, internal culture, and groups. And not one shred of it is remotely testable. It's philosophical babbling at it's finest. Let me quote it, again:
... and rightly so... religious "fundamentalism" had little to do with the sexual scandal within the catholic church. It had all to do with the internal culture among sexually repressed priests. Zizek talked about this, and I agree with him that such phenomena has to do with a barbaric aspect of human tribalism, which is whenever you enter a kind of a group, you have to indulge in practices that are anthitethical to the deontological aspects of the group itself, secretly and humiliatingly. This humiliation is required, so you are accepted as "one of them". Unfortunately, in priesthood, it seems that the selected practice is child abuse. This is a complex phenomena, but we are derailing the thread :p
By contrast, what I've written talks about biology and behaviour, both of which are observable and testable experimentally [EDIT: and note I'm merely saying my hypothesis is testable, not necessarily correct.]. The two are not even remotely alike.
And our primate cousins undoubtedly have some "normal" sexual behaviours that look mighty strange to us, but I imagine they might look at humans and just think we're boring :P For the second time this month, I'll just say that bonobos seem to have the right general idea :D
-
Mustang talked about this too and he said that whenever you can't make it in the real world, you have to indulge in unsupported assertions using words like antithetical outside the vocabulary skills of your average college hipster audience itself, secretly and unfalsifiably. Making unsupported claims disputing the unsupported claims of other philosophers is required, so everyone becomes "a tenured cultural studies professor".
But it's not that I've heard a better and even, gasp, sympathetic to the priests, explanation of this utter puzzling and barbaric phenomena.
How about, um, a more parsimonious explanation such as the priests took advantage of the power over clueless children they had just like anyone else in their position would?
-
Mustang talked about this too and he said that whenever you can't make it in the real world, you have to indulge in unsupported assertions using words like antithetical outside the vocabulary skills of your average college hipster audience itself, secretly and unfalsifiably. Making unsupported claims disputing the unsupported claims of other philosophers is required, so everyone becomes "a tenured cultural studies professor".
Look, I don't think that's a valid critique. The fact is that philosophy is performative. Performativity cannot be understood outside of a process of iterability, a regularized and constrained repetition of norms. And this repetition is not performed by a subject; this repetition is what enables a subject and constitutes the temporal condition for the subject. This iterability implies that 'performance' is not a singular 'act' or event, but a ritualized production, a ritual reiterated under and through constraint, under and through the force of prohibition and taboo, with the threat of ostracism and even death controlling and compelling the shape of the production, but not, I will insist, determining it fully in advance.
-
using words like antithetical outside the vocabulary skills of your average college hipster audience itself
This, tangentially, reminds me: I'm a well-educated fellow, but I'm getting really tired of reading Luis' posts with a Google tab and a dictionary tab open ready adjacent to HLP in Firefox. Seriously. Obscure terminology does not make one's points valid, just painful to read.
Look, I don't think that's a valid critique. The fact is that philosophy is performative. Performativity cannot be understood outside of a process of iterability, a regularized and constrained repetition of norms. And this repetition is not performed by a subject; this repetition is what enables a subject and constitutes the temporal condition for the subject. This iterability implies that 'performance' is not a singular 'act' or event, but a ritualized production, a ritual reiterated under and through constraint, under and through the force of prohibition and taboo, with the threat of ostracism and even death controlling and compelling the shape of the production, but not, I will insist, determining it fully in advance.
I said it more concisely, although with considerably less irony :P
-
Performativity cannot be understood outside of a process of iterability, a regularized and constrained repetition of norms.
Nope. No norms required.
but not, I will insist, determining it fully in advance.
Then what the hell else determines it?
Your reasoning appears to be as follows.
B follows A.
C follows B.
D follows B.
Therefore, A follows pancakes.
-
Therefore, A follows pancakes.
Only if there's maple syrup involved. Otherwise, I'm having no part of A.
-
By contrast, what I've written talks about biology and behaviour, both of which are observable and testable experimentally [EDIT: and note I'm merely saying my hypothesis is testable, not necessarily correct.]. The two are not even remotely alike.
I don't see how Zizek's thesis isn't testable. At least as hard as your thesis is to test. I actually believe in his thesis prima facie because it quite agrees with my life's experience with behavior observations of different groups that I've seen since I was a child. To enter a group, sometimes you seem to need to enter some kind of humilating praxis to get your new "friend's" approval. It's like a personal sacrifice. You are sacrificing your pride (in the priest's case, their moral authority between one another!) in front of your comrades, and it's like a new dirty secret that binds you more into the group.
And our primate cousins undoubtedly have some "normal" sexual behaviours that look mighty strange to us, but I imagine they might look at humans and just think we're boring :P For the second time this month, I'll just say that bonobos seem to have the right general idea :D
I don't think they think at all. Sometimes, that's an advantage!
-
sometimes
Sometimes != all the time (as in the original quote)
Look, I don't think that's a valid critique. The fact is that philosophy is performative. Performativity cannot be understood outside of a process of iterability, a regularized and constrained repetition of norms. And this repetition is not performed by a subject; this repetition is what enables a subject and constitutes the temporal condition for the subject. This iterability implies that 'performance' is not a singular 'act' or event, but a ritualized production, a ritual reiterated under and through constraint, under and through the force of prohibition and taboo, with the threat of ostracism and even death controlling and compelling the shape of the production, but not, I will insist, determining it fully in advance.
Actually Mr Zizek Mouthpiece I see what you did there. You repeated exactly what I just said except less clearly and with a "you're wrong" disclaimer at the beginning. Beautiful.
-
Look, I don't think that's a valid critique. The fact is that philosophy is performative. Performativity cannot be understood outside of a process of iterability, a regularized and constrained repetition of norms. And this repetition is not performed by a subject; this repetition is what enables a subject and constitutes the temporal condition for the subject. This iterability implies that 'performance' is not a singular 'act' or event, but a ritualized production, a ritual reiterated under and through constraint, under and through the force of prohibition and taboo, with the threat of ostracism and even death controlling and compelling the shape of the production, but not, I will insist, determining it fully in advance.
Man this quote is full of win!! :lol:
MP, it's not my problem if I happen to use certain words that are less obscure in portuguese than in english, and it's not an attempt to obscurantirizate my speech, bkay?
If you guys want, I'll try to speak like a teenager, like, stuff, or smth.
-
sometimes
Sometimes != all the time (as in the original quote)
Look, I don't think that's a valid critique. The fact is that philosophy is performative. Performativity cannot be understood outside of a process of iterability, a regularized and constrained repetition of norms. And this repetition is not performed by a subject; this repetition is what enables a subject and constitutes the temporal condition for the subject. This iterability implies that 'performance' is not a singular 'act' or event, but a ritualized production, a ritual reiterated under and through constraint, under and through the force of prohibition and taboo, with the threat of ostracism and even death controlling and compelling the shape of the production, but not, I will insist, determining it fully in advance.
Actually Mr Zizek Mouthpiece I see what you did there. You repeated exactly what I just said except less clearly and with a "you're wrong" disclaimer at the beginning. Beautiful.
I just want to make sure you see what I actually did there
(it was butler)
-
I don't see how Zizek's thesis isn't testable. At least as hard as your thesis is to test. I actually believe in his thesis prima facie because it quite agrees with my life's experience with behavior observations of different groups that I've seen since I was a child. To enter a group, sometimes you seem to need to enter some kind of humilating praxis to get your new "friend's" approval. It's like a personal sacrifice. You are sacrificing your pride (in the priest's case, their moral authority between one another!) in front of your comrades, and it's like a new dirty secret that binds you more into the group.
Prove it. Or rather, since one can't "prove" a hypothesis, design an experiment to collect evidence in support of it. Prima facie arguments have no credibility [edit]and no relevance[/edit] anywhere other than law and philosophy.
(Not going to bother picking apart the flawed interpretation that all priests are aware the sexual abuse by other individual priests, as I'm confident that no experimental design is going to provide a ladder out of Luis' well-dug hole in the first place).
-
I don't see how Zizek's thesis isn't testable. At least as hard as your thesis is to test. I actually believe in his thesis prima facie because it quite agrees with my life's experience with behavior observations of different groups that I've seen since I was a child. To enter a group, sometimes you seem to need to enter some kind of humilating praxis to get your new "friend's" approval. It's like a personal sacrifice. You are sacrificing your pride (in the priest's case, their moral authority between one another!) in front of your comrades, and it's like a new dirty secret that binds you more into the group.
Prove it. Or rather, since one can't "prove" a hypothesis, design an experiment to collect evidence in support of it. Prima facie arguments have no credibility anywhere other than law and philosophy.
Sure. Just collect evidence from these kinds of groups and see what their "more secret" practices involve. This thesis predicts that if a certain group that shares a kind of repression that is typical of its image will have "secret" practices that run counter to this image. So I fail to see where the difficulty lies. Zizek has a mouthful of examples, I don't remember them too well to defend them...
(Not going to bother picking apart the flawed interpretation that all priests are aware the sexual abuse by other individual priests, as I'm confident that no experimental design is going to provide a ladder out of Luis' well-dug hole in the first place).
The fact that the institution repeatedly protected their own priests in their scandalous behaviors, despite that it was something that was blatantly against the very definition of priesthood, you know, someone you could trust for their moral authority, is a very hard evidence going for not only Zizek's thesis, but also the fact that many priests knew what the hell was going on.
-
Prove it. Or rather, since one can't "prove" a hypothesis, design an experiment to collect evidence in support of it. Prima facie arguments have no credibility anywhere other than law and philosophy.
Sure. Just collect evidence from these kinds of groups and see what their "more secret" practices involve. This thesis predicts that if a certain group that shares a kind of repression that is typical of its image will have "secret" practices that run counter to this image. So I fail to see where the difficulty lies. Zizek has a mouthful of examples, I don't remember them too well to defend them...
Man I hope you don't think that's an experiment.
-
Yeah that was stupid. It's called verification.
-
Yeah that was stupid. It's called verification.
It's not even verification. You can't [scientifically] verify something that hasn't ever been tested. You vaguely suggested collecting evidence. How, what, when, where - and most importantly, why does it support the hypothesis?
The fact that the institution repeatedly protected their own priests in their scandalous behaviors
Doesn't mean that all, a majority, or even a significant percentage of individual priests participated in the behaviour or knew about it. The assertion that this was a secret practice of the group suffers from logical inconsistency: the group must participate. You have no facts to bear this out (nor do such statistics exist). If you're going to argue that a practice is a ritual that promotes group membership, you'd better have some hard facts that the group actually engages in said practice.
Without those facts, you can't even begin to test your earlier statements (which are not a hypothesis, because they aren't testable) - and as such, we're back to its status as sociophilosophical bull****.
When you've got something resembling a position based on testable science, post it.
-
Yeah that was stupid. It's called verification.
It's not even verification. You can't [scientifically] verify something that hasn't ever been tested. You vaguely suggested collecting evidence. How, what, when, where - and most importantly, why does it support the hypothesis?
Again, if you observe groups and you fail repeatedly to see the kind of activity I'm suggesting, then consider it falsified.
The fact that the institution repeatedly protected their own priests in their scandalous behaviors
Doesn't mean that all, a majority, or even a significant percentage of individual priests participated in the behaviour or knew about it. The assertion that this was a secret practice of the group suffers from logical inconsistency: the group must participate. You have no facts to bear this out (nor do such statistics exist). If you're going to argue that a practice is a ritual that promotes group membership, you'd better have some hard facts that the group actually engages in said practice.
The group participated in protecting their priests. It's supporting evidence, but sure it isn't sufficient.
Without those facts, you can't even begin to test your earlier statements (which are not a hypothesis, because they aren't testable) - and as such, we're back to its status as sociophilosophical bull****.
Yeah whatever dude. Like I said, it's not as if I buy it wholesale.
-
Again, if you observe groups and you fail repeatedly to see the kind of activity I'm suggesting, then consider it falsified.
Ah, I see, so your position is correct unless we don't see evidence that proves it. There's a name for this type of position in experimental science... null hypothesis. Except what you've said isn't one. And that's STILL not an experimental design.
The group participated in protecting their priests. It's supporting evidence, but sure it isn't sufficient.
It isn't even supporting evidence. Some members of a group participated. It's not a feature that defines or is exclusive to the group. You can't treat it as such. The participating group isn't even inclusive of all or most priests. For something to be a group ritual, the group needs to actually participate in it.
Yeah whatever dude. Like I said, it's not as if I buy it wholesale.
(http://diannej.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/backpedaling34.jpg)
-
To reach my own point, yes, I'm delibrately deflating Goatmasters' hsyteria
To read your words literally, you are saying what G0at has claimed is inaccurate at best and deliberate falsehood that he stupidly believed at worst. oo... k, moving on...
because its the exact opposite of how to deal with the problem,
So, great one, lead the way... oh wait, how did you say to fix this problem again?
especially when a number of these organizations have been involved with doctoring evidence to pass as "statistics," this was an issue that was recently brought up at a human trafficking symposium hosted by my university's peace and justic studies.
Which, obviously, because it was brought up at a symposium hosted by your university, means it's true. While statistics by relatively well-trusted organizations are not. :wtf: Yes, I know you didn't say that that constituted proof of your claims. You also didn't give any proof. wow EDIT: In other words, in the said symposium, what facts were discussed and what were the sources backing said facts ... not asking for a transcript, but we don't even see an overview here... nothing on radar, flying blind.
All I'm saying is that screaming "Think of the children!" is usually A) Associated with Shock Tactics and B) We need to question the origin/method of studies.
As for the conforence: http://www.uvu.edu/blogs/newsroom/2010/11/30/seminar-focuses-on-human-trafficking-in-utah-and-the-u-s/
Take for example: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/slaves/etc/stats.html & www.securitytransformation.org/images/publicaciones/164_Working_Paper_5_-_Why_Sex_Trafficking_is_Constrained_and_Limited._A_Conceptual_Explanation.pdf
My cynical nature towards this just doesn't come from nowhere. Vivint = APX Alarm = History of bad business practice:
http://arkansasnews.com/2010/09/10/ag-files-lawsuit-against-alarm-company/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUe5n1AIA6g
http://www.bbb.org/us/post/something-to-be-alarmed-about-police-revoke-35-door-to-door-sales-permits-for-security-company-498
http://www.katv.com/story/14701520/vivint-home-security
Throw in "APX alarm scam" into the great Google and be amazed:
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6674/screenshot0607201106102.png) (http://img11.imageshack.us/i/screenshot0607201106102.png/)
Vivint, formerly APX, has been trying to do all sorts of charity work to clear up its bad reputation for door to door sales, high rates, and unwanted contracts.
-
Again, if you observe groups and you fail repeatedly to see the kind of activity I'm suggesting, then consider it falsified.
Ah, I see, so your position is correct unless we don't see evidence that proves it. There's a name for this type of position in experimental science... null hypothesis. Except what you've said isn't one. And that's STILL not an experimental design.
It's an observational methodology, since you cannot really experiment with these kinds of social interactions in a tabula rasa environment, now can you?
And before you go AHA SO THAT AINT SCIENCE!, consider that you may be writing off astrophysics as complete rubbish.
The group participated in protecting their priests. It's supporting evidence, but sure it isn't sufficient.
It isn't even supporting evidence. Some members of a group participated. It's not a feature that defines or is exclusive to the group. You can't treat it as such. The participating group isn't even inclusive of all or most priests.
Not "some", but "all", in the sense that there was practically no leakage for decades. That means that yes, I can treat it as such.
-
It's an observational methodology, since you cannot really experiment with these kinds of social interactions in a tabula rasa environment, now can you?
And before you go AHA SO THAT AINT SCIENCE!, consider that you may be writing off astrophysics as complete rubbish.
Observational methodologies have strict design controls. What you've proposed doesn't. And observation still doesn't abuse the notion of a null, which you have done. We've now gone from experimental design (which it wasn't) to verification (which it wasn't) to observational study (which it isn't). Is a weak attempt to call it qualitative design next, or are you going to simply concede that you're trying to pass off philosophical musing under the banner of scientific plausibility and be done with it?
Not "some", but "all", in the sense that there was practically no leakage for decades. That means that yes, I can treat it as such.
No, it doesn't. If you want to argue this was some secret ritual practiced by priests in order to gain acceptance in priesthood, then priests need to actually practice it in a ritualized fashion. The fact that some covered it up doesn't mean all priests did, nor does it make them all complicit in its practice. Osama bin Laden's location was unknown for ten years; you can't say the entire country of Pakistan was complicit in hiding him.
-
It's an observational methodology, since you cannot really experiment with these kinds of social interactions in a tabula rasa environment, now can you?
And before you go AHA SO THAT AINT SCIENCE!, consider that you may be writing off astrophysics as complete rubbish.
Observational methodologies have strict design controls. What you've proposed doesn't. And observation still doesn't abuse the notion of a null, which you have done. We've now gone from experimental design (which it wasn't) to verification (which it wasn't) to observational study (which it isn't). Is a weak attempt to call it qualitative design next, or are you going to simply concede that you're trying to pass off philosophical musing under the banner of scientific plausibility and be done with it?
If your point is that I haven't designed thoroughly the scientific methodology in order to verify this idea, well then doh! I was merely pointing out how it could be sketched, not making a damned PhD thesis. The question about what is the "null hypothesis" is a fair one. But we have to start somewhere.
Not "some", but "all", in the sense that there was practically no leakage for decades. That means that yes, I can treat it as such.
No, it doesn't. If you want to argue this was some secret ritual practiced by priests in order to gain acceptance in priesthood, then priests need to actually practice it in a ritualized fashion.
"Official" rituals aren't necessary. Just the wink wink subtle process of confirming that you are one of them.
The fact that some covered it up doesn't mean all priests did, nor does it make them all complicit in its practice. Osama bin Laden's location was unknown for ten years; you can't say the entire country of Pakistan was complicit in hiding him.
Of course not. I'm not blaming the entirety of the priesthood, and I was actually advocating that it was a sort of a "groupthink" (or grouppraxis) phenomena.
But okay, let's accept your criticism and say that this is all rubbish. Now you propose that the sexual repression is enough to explain this phenomena, when that isn't that clear to me. Sexual repression doesn't transform people into pedophiles. So what gives?
-
If your point is that I haven't designed thoroughly the scientific methodology in order to verify this idea, well then doh! I was merely pointing out how it could be sketched, not making a damned PhD thesis. The question about what is the "null hypothesis" is a fair one. But we have to start somewhere.
My point is that you were asked to frame your philosophical musing in a way that could be tested and supported. You haven't. You presented it as an explanation, but haven't shown any interest is displaying how it could be supported by anything other than vague handwaving. I was just going to give you a pass here in light of one of your last sentences in this post, but I want to drive home the point that you tried to equate philosophy with testable scientific arguments, and it got you called out.
"Official" rituals aren't necessary. Just the wink wink subtle process of confirming that you are one of them.
Now you're not describing a ritual, then. That negates your earlier point entirely. It's either a ritual, or not. Perhaps you should look at the meaning of the term again and decide what you mean.
Of course not. I'm not blaming the entirety of the priesthood, and I was actually advocating that it was a sort of a "groupthink" (or grouppraxis) phenomena.
Groupthink is an oft-abused social psychology term, and doesn't apply to what you've been describing.
But okay, let's accept your criticism and say that this is all rubbish. Now you propose that the sexual repression is enough to explain this phenomena, when that isn't that clear to me. Sexual repression doesn't transform people into pedophiles. So what gives?
Not all sexually-deviant priests are pedophiles. My suggested hypothesis is that forcible repression of sexual behaviour in humans may lead to hidden expression in ways considered socially deviant (again, a hypothesis, not necessarily correct). As a secondary hypothesis, I'd suggest that the expression as sexual attraction to children in particular has more to do with opportunity, vulnerability and subsequent reinforcement of that desire through action than any spontaneous sexual desire for kids. (Someone else mentioned this, apologies for not remembering whom).
Some priests are sexually "deviant" in that they essentially take wives by maintaining household "staff" - this has happened throughout history. Others are homosexual. Regardless, these "deviant" behaviours don't get anywhere near the attention as pedophilia because of the reaction that pedophilia gets in Western culture.
-
This actually got me a tad worried as well - fortunately the Aussie government seem more or less on top of it, and even the worst estimates say there're no more than a thousand women at any one time in Australia (and more realistic estimates suggest between one and four hundred). Still a serious issue, but not as bad as these stats seem to imply might be the case elsewhere.
A good friend of mine was a victim for 9 years. She was, in fact, trafficked to Sydney at one point.
Also, check out the Sex + Money movie. I have a friend that was involved in the making of, and can personally vouch for its legitimacy.