[MP-Ryan]

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.

[AtomicClucker]

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.    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:



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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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?

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[G0atmaster]

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.