Intelligence Is All Around You

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Yeah no. Throwing out insults and making wild claims doesn't constitute as proof
I gave you plenty of proof. You just refuse to accept it. Telling someone that they are full of it while providing absolutely no proof of their own wild claim doesn't constitute an argument.
 

BigPapaChakra

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
63
Your bordering on using an argument from incredulity, substituting an ontological argument for some falsified global jesuit conspiracy. Further, you used considerable amounts of false attribution, and seemingly claim to be quite talented at statistics and logic despite only being capable of citing "straw man" as a logical fallacy I purportedly committed. How generic. Couldn't you have at least stated I committed a McNamara fallacy or something?

Your numbers are also false, you cited a web page that has an abundance of what you claim to have determined to be outright pedophiles though who were accused or sued, some were convicted, but the vast majority were not. I address this in my original post, though you seem to have glossed over the fact that I got my numbers from the largest report conducted to date on this topic, and took direct quotes and statistics from the report; many of your ACCUSED pedophiles were also before 1950 in Boston, which I specifically state wasn't covered in the report ('50-'02) and how the numbers have been declining from previously larger amounts.

You also didn't discuss how you simply cite the same few men over and over again who have absolutely no mathematical or scientific knowledge so rely on "bombshell" interviews with random people, and ironically you state that we can't argue against your citations because "everything is controlled", but you can cite your citations because, somehow, they are immune to Jesuit infiltration. Then you throw out a half-**** attempt at attacking my intelligence and experience by stating I'm in undergrad, which is true, though in less than a year I'll be in med school (not that that even matters, but your attempt to insult my intelligence or capability of understanding statistical data is simply a reflection on yourself and your ability to argue, not any validity of your assertion with regards to my abilities/intelligence/life experience).

Then you state, "As for your conspiracy theory about me, I’ll just say that the truth always sounds the same, no matter who is telling it, because there is only one truth.
Veritas Aequinas aka x-ray peat. lol."
I'm not sure if this is outright sarcasm, but if not it simply proves everything I stated. You are the primary contributor to r/RomeRules and the primary one providing any "citations", which are the same citations you post in this forum, which are from all the same individuals (all ironically selling expensive and useless products to spread their lies). Further, you are the one, then, who called evolution a deception, spoke about the Pope(s) accepting "evolutionism" as something bad, and implied that homosexuals 'can't be saved' (calling the idea "communistic heresy").

I can only assume that you are then Michael Shore, who offered an equally appalling response on rense.com, probably why it seems as though you took my critiques personally. Based on your seeming disbelief in science and statistics, peer reviewed literature, etc. and devout acceptance of "research" from blogs and youtube channels from Christians who believe everything in the Bible is prophetic, I can safely assume you may be a Christian Fundamentalist and/or New Earther as well, who sees the current socio-geopolitical events occurring as a sign of the End of Times; even if only some of that is true, I'm not sure why anyone at the Peat forum would wish to take your "arguments" seriously.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Your bordering on using an argument from incredulity, substituting an ontological argument for some falsified global jesuit conspiracy. Further, you used considerable amounts of false attribution, and seemingly claim to be quite talented at statistics and logic despite only being capable of citing "straw man" as a logical fallacy I purportedly committed. How generic. Couldn't you have at least stated I committed a McNamara fallacy or something?

Your numbers are also false, you cited a web page that has an abundance of what you claim to have determined to be outright pedophiles though who were accused or sued, some were convicted, but the vast majority were not. I address this in my original post, though you seem to have glossed over the fact that I got my numbers from the largest report conducted to date on this topic, and took direct quotes and statistics from the report; many of your ACCUSED pedophiles were also before 1950 in Boston, which I specifically state wasn't covered in the report ('50-'02) and how the numbers have been declining from previously larger amounts.

You also didn't discuss how you simply cite the same few men over and over again who have absolutely no mathematical or scientific knowledge so rely on "bombshell" interviews with random people, and ironically you state that we can't argue against your citations because "everything is controlled", but you can cite your citations because, somehow, they are immune to Jesuit infiltration. Then you throw out a half-**** attempt at attacking my intelligence and experience by stating I'm in undergrad, which is true, though in less than a year I'll be in med school (not that that even matters, but your attempt to insult my intelligence or capability of understanding statistical data is simply a reflection on yourself and your ability to argue, not any validity of your assertion with regards to my abilities/intelligence/life experience).

Then you state, "As for your conspiracy theory about me, I’ll just say that the truth always sounds the same, no matter who is telling it, because there is only one truth.
Veritas Aequinas aka x-ray peat. lol."
I'm not sure if this is outright sarcasm, but if not it simply proves everything I stated. You are the primary contributor to r/RomeRules and the primary one providing any "citations", which are the same citations you post in this forum, which are from all the same individuals (all ironically selling expensive and useless products to spread their lies). Further, you are the one, then, who called evolution a deception, spoke about the Pope(s) accepting "evolutionism" as something bad, and implied that homosexuals 'can't be saved' (calling the idea "communistic heresy").

I can only assume that you are then Michael Shore, who offered an equally appalling response on rense.com, probably why it seems as though you took my critiques personally. Based on your seeming disbelief in science and statistics, peer reviewed literature, etc. and devout acceptance of "research" from blogs and youtube channels from Christians who believe everything in the Bible is prophetic, I can safely assume you may be a Christian Fundamentalist and/or New Earther as well, who sees the current socio-geopolitical events occurring as a sign of the End of Times; even if only some of that is true, I'm not sure why anyone at the Peat forum would wish to take your "arguments" seriously.
The hits just keep on coming. First the fancy statistical term dropping and now a new bluster of rhetorical buzzwords, fresh off the latest Wikipedia list of logical fallacies. If you are trying to give everyone a sense of your profound intelligence, it would have been better of course if you understood what those words mean. For instance an ontological argument has to do with the existence of God and I don't recall us discussing that particular issue. An argument from incredulity would have been hard for me to make as I am the one proposing the hard to believe idea. I am not sure if you did or not but that is usually the first argument made when first encountering this stuff. I'm pretty sure you did use the McNamara Fallacy correctly (I had to look that one up) but I take it you don't seriously think it applies to you. I'm also pretty sure that "generic" is not the right word for that little insult of yours.

Let me just say that I only brought up the fact that you were an undergraduate to say that at that level you wouldn't have any idea what your Professors believe or what their affiliations are, particularly those of the gatekeepers at the scholarly journals. I certainly didn't at that age and most people never do so please don't take that so personally. Falsely accusing me of being someone else and then putting their ridiculous words in my mouth is pretty sketchy but I don't take that personally. Hopefully I can put an end to your confusion by clearly stating that I am not Michael Shore or any of the other guys you accuse me of being. Since you bothered to read through my old posts, you should have seen that I made no references to the Bible, prophecy or whatever else you find to be so objectionable.

So far you have yet to make a single real argument that refutes any of the information I have provided. You could easily have checked the veracity of any of the many historical quotes I gave in this thread or skimmed through some of the books I linked to but rather chose to engage in mostly ad hominem attacks on a few internet researchers. Attacking the messenger, especially given how laughable the attacks are, is not an argument. As just one example, the journalist lawyer you think is so shady because he goes by two different names is Greg Anthony Szymanski. He uses Greg Anthony on the radio because nobody could pronounce his last name.

As for your supposed gold standard study that yielded the magic 0.216 pedophile priests in Boston, it was commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and was based only on Church records. Now this is an example of an error of false attribution due to the obvious inherent bias and conflict of interest. The data source I provided is based on a wide variety of sources reporting publicly accused pedophile priests by name and from law suits, criminal actions, or church punishments. Given the laws against slander and libel and the difficulty in getting a lawyer to launch a lawsuit, as well as the fact that the Bishops were continually found guilty of a coverup, can you honestly tell me that the Bishop study is more reliable. Also you are confusing the issue of Priests ordained before 1950 with the issue of the abuse occurring after 1950. The vast majority if not all of the abuse cases occurred after 1950 in the link I provided. Both sources have priests that were ordained before 1950.

Be that it may, your referenced study alone claims that there were over 4,000 pedophile priests in the US from 1950-2002 and estimates that number to represent about 4% of all priests working during that time. So if known disinfo agent Miles Mathis's and your math is correct, 0.216 priests would mean that a whopping 5.4 Priests worked in the Boston Diocese in that 50 year period. Sorry, that's not even close.

Finally, I realize that these are not easy ideas to accept as they are so completely counter to the history we have been taught. But your complete rejection without really looking into any of it beyond the posts of a few Internet Bible believers is a bit surprising. Read the short (200 pg) "Secret History of the Jesuits" by former Catholic Priest and historian Edmond Paris and then you may be able to make a proper refutation. http://www.spirituallysmart.com/Paris-The_Secret_History_of_Jesuits_1975.pdf
 
Last edited:

BigPapaChakra

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
63
There are so many errors in your above comment, it's staggering.

I didn't say you used an ontological argument, I said you substituted the ontological argument with a global jesuit conspiracy.

You ARE using an argument from incredulity, here's one very simple explanation: Argument from Incredulity "The unwillingness to entertain ideas that one finds unbelievable is fallacious, especially when the ideas are mainstream ideas made by a reputable source, such as a NASA and the truthfulness of the moon landings."

You refuse to entertain the idea that peer reviewed scientific and mathematical literature provides more truthful conclusions than your "history" sites. You seem to think that there mustn't be a simple explanation for these phenomena you cite, thus it has to be something grander (a global jesuit conspiracy) - this is exactly what people do when arguing from incredulity using the ontological argument, accept the argument is typically revolving around god, creation, etc.

I'm not sure what your educational or occupational background is, but again, your assertions about academia are false, and I can cite not only dozens of personal experiences as refutations, but research - that you seem to not be inclined to believe - though that isn't necessary.

You claim, "The data source I provided is based on a wide variety of sources reporting publicly accused pedophile priests by name and from law suits, criminal actions, or church punishments. Given the laws against slander and libel and the difficulty in getting a lawyer to launch a lawsuit, as well as the fact that the Bishops were continually found guilty of a coverup, can you honestly tell me that the Bishop study is more reliable."

False. You didn't even read the study. It was conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice; it was commissioned by who you stated it was, but the researchers and those doing the sampling, statistical analyses, etc. were from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "In June 2002 the full body of Catholic bishops of the United States in their General Meeting in Dallas approved the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. The Charter created a National Review Board, which was assigned responsibility to commission a descriptive study, with the full cooperation of the dioceses/eparchies, of the nature and scope of the problem of sexual abuse of minors by clergy. The National Review Board engaged John Jay College of Criminal Justice of The City University of New York to conduct research, summarize the collected data, and issue a summary report to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops of its findings. This report by the John Jay College is authorized for publication by the undersigned."
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...nd-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf

The Bishops were aware that there is an increased preponderance of sexual abuse committed by men of faith
than the general population, and wanted a full scale study done to assess how expansive the scope is, and additionally, what are the key identifiers of people perpetuating the crimes.

You claim, "Also you are confusing the issue of Priests ordained before 1950 with the issue of the abuse occurring after 1950. The vast majority if not all of the abuse cases occurred after 1950 in the link I provided. Both sources have priests that were ordained before 1950." False. John Jay Report states "The mandate for the study was to: 1. Examine the number and nature of allegations of sexual abuse of minors under the age of 18 by Catholic priests between 1950 and 2002." Further, it states "we received allegations of sexual abuse against a total of 4,392 priests that were not withdrawn or known to be false for the period 1950-2002." Additionally, "The majority of priests with allegations of abuse were ordained between 1950 and 1979 (68%). Priests ordained prior to 1950 accounted for 21.3% of the allegations, and priests ordained after 1979 accounted for 10.7% of allegations."

"The 149 priests (3.5%) who had more than ten allegations of abuse were allegedly responsible for abusing 2,960 victims, thus accounting for 26% of allegations. Therefore, a very small percentage of accused priests are responsible for a substantial percentage of the allegations."

Also,
"Nearly all of these reports have led to investigations, and 384 instances have led to criminal charges. Of those priests for whom information about dispositions is available, 252 were convicted and at least 100 of those served time in prison. Thus, 6% of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2% received prison sentences to date."

Read Page 16 of the report, section "Reliability of Data" and "Data Entry". Then read page 20, "Study Terminology" where they discuss allegations vs. convictions and the inclusion of "Ephebophile (also called hebophile) A clinical term (though not included in the DSM-IV) that denotes one who is sexually attracted to adolescent or post-pubescent children."

Further, "If the total number of priests in religious communities who have had allegations made against them is presented as a percentage of all religious priests in ministry, as estimated form the study data, the percentage accused of child sexual abuse is 2.7%."
 

BigPapaChakra

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
63
I can go on and on about that study, as I said, it is like 200+ pages and has hundreds of citations. It only evidences what I have said previously:

1. This community has a higher incidence of sexual abuse and pedophilia than the general population, but
1.a. it is drastically smaller than what you propose it is
2. There are very frequently criminal convictions and prison time served, though you seem to imply that this global conspiracy keeps any action from being taken
3. Only 2.7% seem to be accused of sexual abuse - this is an extremely small number, though, again, much higher than the general population. Further, even less are found to have committed a crime, even after investigations.
4. "149 priests (3.5%) [of those accused, so an even smaller number] who had more than ten allegations of abuse were allegedly responsible for abusing 2,960 victims, thus accounting for 26% of allegations." --- of the amount accused, a very small minority make up a significantly large portion of allegations.
5. The researchers seem to indicate, as I've said, the numbers begin dropping as the decades come by. The problem didn't remain steady or increase, it decreased, and this was even after full scale large investigations and reports that you'd think would uncover an ever increasing amount of sexual abuse

If I'm remembering correctly, the incidents discussed in Spotlight occurred in like '76 and thereafter. According to Boston (Archdiocese) [Catholic-Hierarchy] there were "1376" Diocesan priests in Boston at this time. Again, you have to choose which statistic to apply to this number from the John Jay Report, but let's use the one I cited above, 2.7% (there were numbers as low as, or even lower than 1%). That would give like 37.152 priests with allegations of sexual abuse, and if we used the number of 6% of those with allegations are convicted, that would be like 2.29 priests. Yet, if we were to use the lower bounds of the stats reported (let's say 1%) in the John Jay Report, and use catholic priests (855), the number would drop to below 1 (0.513 - again, I said I got different numbers than Mathis, but it is still less than 1).

Also, as I showed very clearly above, you completely misinterpret the study and make wild claims like "Be that it may, your referenced study alone claims that there were over 4,000 pedophile priests in the US from 1950-2002 and estimates that number to represent about 4% of all priests working during that time."

No, there were over 4,000 priests with as little as one allegation of sexual abuse that can be as little as touching over the clothes and also includes ephebophilia. The estimates, as I quoted above, go far below that, but a number settled on in one small paragraph of the abstract states that 4% of those surveyed "had allegations of abuse."

You also refuted nothing I said about Greg Anthony Szymanski. His "Citations" and "history" are just various religious individuals and himself, consistently linking to his own sites, his own blogs, his own interviews, and again, with a large portion being done with various religious individuals claiming that the jesuit conspiracy is Luciferian and those committing these acts aren't the real Christians. Typical argument used by these guys.

You then end off linking me to a book that was written. So, how do we know this book is reliable? What are some of the amazing figures and facts you found in this book? Did you validate them for yourself? Then the author of the book claims himself "This study is based on irrefutable archive documents, publications from well-known political personalities, diplomats, ambassadors and eminent writers, most of whom are Catholics, even attested by the imprimatur." With dozens of very uninformative reviews, some stating the man is a ex-Jesuit monk (or something of the like), and most of the critical reviews (though still not too informative) claiming the book was okay.

Since you sent me a link that has the book for free, I'll agree to read it by next weekend, but going off of the reviews and the author himself, it seems like another one of these books with one person claiming those doing bad are not following Christianity correctly and they are satanic and we need to open up the case and purify the church and all that jazz.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Now that I have a bit more time, I'll add a definition for you so we are all on the same page.
Jesuitical:
1) practicing casuistry or equivocation; using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing.
2) bull ***t.

Ok I added meaning 2 but that is what Jesuitical really means

I could easily go through each one of your statements and show the obvious flaws in logic, outright error in fact, or your continued use of partial or out of context sentences of mine but that would take far too long and would not be worth it for me or anyone still reading this thread.

More importantly I think you still are operating under the assumption that historical research is the same as scientific research. It seems that you have a nice shiny hammer from all of your experience in statistical analysis and are looking at the world as a huge data set of shiny nails. However this is not the case; History is very different than science. The first step in historical research is qualitative not quantitative and involves the review of primary sources, contemporary media reports, other historical works etc. It is only then that a quantitative analysis may be used to dive into some of the finer points and only if they have reliable numbers that would yield themselves to meaningful statistical analysis.

Your initial idea of subjecting primary sources to quantitative analysis before even reading one book on the subject is nonsensical. You could spend months analyzing trivial data sets with no idea if they mean anything or are just a statistical artifact of the sources you happened upon. Ironically I came across a graph of the frequency of use of the word Jesuit in America going back to the 1700s. The word wasn’t used very much in the 1700s, was used a lot starting in the early 1800s and then dropped off by half ever since the 1900s. Without any historical knowledge of their time in America you would have no idea what this would mean. With this knowledge you would clearly see why this would be obviously so. It’s not a great discovery. A short essay on their history would explain this and much more.

Also I challenged the Council of Bishops sponsored study because it has a clear conflict of interest as the research was not only sponsored by the Church but was based solely on church provided data. I t was also presented in anonymous form so you can't check it. The source I preferred used publicly available information with actual names of the priests and links to the primary sources that confirm the allegation. Not accepting a study with such a clear conflict of interest is not an argument from incredulity. I also don't particularly like pharmaceutical company research studies. It has nothing to do with being peer reviewed or not.

But my my main issue was with your analysis of their data. Your number of 0.216 priests or whatever ludicrously low number of pedophile priest you came up with is a clear example of the dangers of blind quantitative analysis without regard to the actual facts. The McNamara Fallacy as you pointed out.

The facts of the matter is that in the Boston Diocese, five priests were convicted and served jail time and anywhere from 250 to 260 priests were publicly accused. The 260 comes from my “history” source while the 250 comes from a public apology letter from Cardinal O’Malley who ran the Archdiocese after the scandal broke. Archdiocese of Boston Publication With Respect to Archdiocesan Clergy Accused of Sexual Abuse of a Child Seems like my "history" source is spot on and probably differs due to ongoing abuses discovered after the Cardinal’s letter was issued. Your 0.216 doesn’t seem to hold up in any way. So much for quantitative analysis and the quality of your peer reviewed source.
 
Last edited:

BigPapaChakra

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
63
Unfortunately, you must've misread everything I said.

0.216 is Mathis' number, which is more accurate than the number(s) you provide. Secondly, the numbers Mathis provides and that my numbers are close to are speaking about the movie Spotlight and, to a lesser extent, the likely amount of actual pedophiles in Boston at the time of the alleged scandal(s). The first cite you provided, which allows you to search up different cities and the sexual abuse incidents there, shows incidents in Boston from way before 1950, all the way through the 2000's. IIRC the scandal that Spotlight talks about is in '76, and the John Jay Report, as I've already shown, doesn't discuss incidents prior to 1950 or after 2002.

Secondly, again, essentially all your sources include a large amount of people who had allegations against them; this is extremely different than being a convicted pedophile. Furthermore, you can't play the conspiracy theorist game of 'oh, well of course they weren't convicted because, you know, the people at the top won't let that happen' because as I already cited, a minimum of 6% of those with allegations between '50-2002 were convicted, with 100 serving prison sentences. Considering that the John Jay Report itself states that a significant portion of allegations were filed 25+ years after the purported events, a 6% conviction rate isn't bad at all. Also, the John Jay Report and some of your citations include ephebophilia, which is not the same thing as pedophilia.

Thirdly, your cite Archdiocese of Boston Publication With Respect to Archdiocesan Clergy Accused of Sexual Abuse of a Child refutes your own quote that "The facts of the matter is that in the Boston Diocese, five priests were convicted and served jail time and anywhere from 250 to 260 priests were publicly accused. The 260 comes from my “history” source while the 250 comes from a public apology letter from Cardinal O’Malley who ran the Archdiocese after the scandal broke."

Your own cite claims, "To put this information in context, there have been to date a total of 250 clerics of the Boston Archdiocese accused of sexually abusing a minor," and most importantly, "It is important to note that the allegations of sexual abuse by Archdiocesan priests generally do not involve claims about current misconduct, but rather involve abuse occurring decades ago and before the Church adopted its current child protection policies. As described in detail in the report published by the Archdiocese in February 2004, the vast majority of the complaints received by the Archdiocese before 2004 involved incidents alleged to have occurred from 1965 to 1982, with a substantial decline in the number of incidents thereafter. More recent data, collected through 2010, confirm that same historical pattern. Only 4% of the 198 allegations received by the Archdiocese in the past six years involve child abuse alleged to have occurred more recently than 1990; over 90% of the incidents are alleged to have occurred before 1985."

Now, what proves you haven't even validated your own sources is located within the article itself. There are citations at the bottom. Click on the first one. It brings you to this: http://www.bostoncatholic.org/uploadedFiles/News_releases_2004_statement040226.pdf which states "The numbers reported below relate to accusations of sexual abuse of a minor during the time period 1950 through 2003 by an ordained priest. In that time period, a total of 162 archdiocesan priests were alleged to have sexually abused a minor. The number 162 simply reflects the total number of priests against whom allegations have been received in this time period. It does not mean that a determination criminally, civilly, or canonically, has been made regarding the truth or non-truth of the allegation. The number of accused priests represents approximately 7% of the archdiocesan priests who served from 1950-2003"

162 with allegations in 53 years. Far from your 250-260. Further, "those priests ordained from 1980 through 2003, a period of over 23 years, a total of 8 priests have had an allegation made against them" To me that indicates that the rates of allegations and convictions are going down drastically, after a variety of intra-group policy changes were made, the John Jay Report, other reports in 2010, etc. But let's see if that's true. "Of these alleged victims, slightly more than half relate to sexual abuse alleged against just 7 archdiocesan priests." Oh, okay, so as I said above, a very small minority of those with accusations commit the majority of the purported crimes. "The vast majority of allegations involve incidents that are alleged to have occurred within the period from 1965 to 1982. The number of allegations involving sexual abuse during the period from 1983 through 2003 shows a substantial decline in comparison to the prior periods." Oh, again, just as I said. The numbers have continued to drop drastically.

So, there you have it. You artificially inflated your numbers and provided a citation for me to look at that in fact came much closer to what I said the reality is. Now, you don't have to claim that I'm using some studies you disagree with or aren't looking at your sources. Your own sources prove your assertions invalid.

To top it off, again, the John Jay Report doesn't have a conflict of interest. If I owned a company supplement company like, say, Haidut, and had my own company/researchers conduct research on my products, then self-publish that research, and further, not include blinding, controls, randomization, etc. Well, then there may be a conflict of interest. The Council of Bishops didn't run a study on themselves. They had a 3rd party which is in the business of doing this research conduct the research. The Council of Bishops was also not involved in the study to any meaningful extent, and they didn't tell the researchers what to do. The research was controlled and blinded. The researchers didn't even do most of the data entry, yet another party conducted that. This is how good research is conducted. And the anonymity issue you bring up only shows that you have yet to conduct any research of your own. In most contexts I can think of, even something as simple as studying a supplement like CoQ10, everything is anonymous. If other researchers wanted to ask you for your raw data from a study, all they'd receive is arbitrary data points, no names or any information of that sort. This is one of the first things that is taught in the most basic research design classes regarding the ethics of research. This has nothing to do with any statistical hacking techniques employed by the Council of Bishops.

Furthermore, you aren't understanding the difference between experimental and non-experimental research, where non-experimental research still includes the use of statistics and data acquisition in most contexts. The typical things lacking in ethnographic, historical, etc. research would be control over the studies environment which would decrease internal validity, though that doesn't matter much because you are typically not manipulating an IV in that context, thus you aren't looking to see if your IV causes/influences your DV to a meaningful extent. You can still collect numerical data, though, and run statistical tests (as is often done), such as one of the most simple there is, a chi square (though ANCOVAs and a variety of other multivariate statistical tests can be used). There are literally social and evolutionary psychologists who do quant. analysis on historical records, pamphlets, literature, etc.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Unfortunately, you must've misread everything I said.

0.216 is Mathis' number, which is more accurate than the number(s) you provide. Secondly, the numbers Mathis provides and that my numbers are close to are speaking about the movie Spotlight and, to a lesser extent, the likely amount of actual pedophiles in Boston at the time of the alleged scandal(s). The first cite you provided, which allows you to search up different cities and the sexual abuse incidents there, shows incidents in Boston from way before 1950, all the way through the 2000's. IIRC the scandal that Spotlight talks about is in '76, and the John Jay Report, as I've already shown, doesn't discuss incidents prior to 1950 or after 2002.

Secondly, again, essentially all your sources include a large amount of people who had allegations against them; this is extremely different than being a convicted pedophile. Furthermore, you can't play the conspiracy theorist game of 'oh, well of course they weren't convicted because, you know, the people at the top won't let that happen' because as I already cited, a minimum of 6% of those with allegations between '50-2002 were convicted, with 100 serving prison sentences. Considering that the John Jay Report itself states that a significant portion of allegations were filed 25+ years after the purported events, a 6% conviction rate isn't bad at all. Also, the John Jay Report and some of your citations include ephebophilia, which is not the same thing as pedophilia.

Thirdly, your cite Archdiocese of Boston Publication With Respect to Archdiocesan Clergy Accused of Sexual Abuse of a Child refutes your own quote that "The facts of the matter is that in the Boston Diocese, five priests were convicted and served jail time and anywhere from 250 to 260 priests were publicly accused. The 260 comes from my “history” source while the 250 comes from a public apology letter from Cardinal O’Malley who ran the Archdiocese after the scandal broke."

Your own cite claims, "To put this information in context, there have been to date a total of 250 clerics of the Boston Archdiocese accused of sexually abusing a minor," and most importantly, "It is important to note that the allegations of sexual abuse by Archdiocesan priests generally do not involve claims about current misconduct, but rather involve abuse occurring decades ago and before the Church adopted its current child protection policies. As described in detail in the report published by the Archdiocese in February 2004, the vast majority of the complaints received by the Archdiocese before 2004 involved incidents alleged to have occurred from 1965 to 1982, with a substantial decline in the number of incidents thereafter. More recent data, collected through 2010, confirm that same historical pattern. Only 4% of the 198 allegations received by the Archdiocese in the past six years involve child abuse alleged to have occurred more recently than 1990; over 90% of the incidents are alleged to have occurred before 1985."

Now, what proves you haven't even validated your own sources is located within the article itself. There are citations at the bottom. Click on the first one. It brings you to this: http://www.bostoncatholic.org/uploadedFiles/News_releases_2004_statement040226.pdf which states "The numbers reported below relate to accusations of sexual abuse of a minor during the time period 1950 through 2003 by an ordained priest. In that time period, a total of 162 archdiocesan priests were alleged to have sexually abused a minor. The number 162 simply reflects the total number of priests against whom allegations have been received in this time period. It does not mean that a determination criminally, civilly, or canonically, has been made regarding the truth or non-truth of the allegation. The number of accused priests represents approximately 7% of the archdiocesan priests who served from 1950-2003"

162 with allegations in 53 years. Far from your 250-260. Further, "those priests ordained from 1980 through 2003, a period of over 23 years, a total of 8 priests have had an allegation made against them" To me that indicates that the rates of allegations and convictions are going down drastically, after a variety of intra-group policy changes were made, the John Jay Report, other reports in 2010, etc. But let's see if that's true. "Of these alleged victims, slightly more than half relate to sexual abuse alleged against just 7 archdiocesan priests." Oh, okay, so as I said above, a very small minority of those with accusations commit the majority of the purported crimes. "The vast majority of allegations involve incidents that are alleged to have occurred within the period from 1965 to 1982. The number of allegations involving sexual abuse during the period from 1983 through 2003 shows a substantial decline in comparison to the prior periods." Oh, again, just as I said. The numbers have continued to drop drastically.

So, there you have it. You artificially inflated your numbers and provided a citation for me to look at that in fact came much closer to what I said the reality is. Now, you don't have to claim that I'm using some studies you disagree with or aren't looking at your sources. Your own sources prove your assertions invalid.

To top it off, again, the John Jay Report doesn't have a conflict of interest. If I owned a company supplement company like, say, Haidut, and had my own company/researchers conduct research on my products, then self-publish that research, and further, not include blinding, controls, randomization, etc. Well, then there may be a conflict of interest. The Council of Bishops didn't run a study on themselves. They had a 3rd party which is in the business of doing this research conduct the research. The Council of Bishops was also not involved in the study to any meaningful extent, and they didn't tell the researchers what to do. The research was controlled and blinded. The researchers didn't even do most of the data entry, yet another party conducted that. This is how good research is conducted. And the anonymity issue you bring up only shows that you have yet to conduct any research of your own. In most contexts I can think of, even something as simple as studying a supplement like CoQ10, everything is anonymous. If other researchers wanted to ask you for your raw data from a study, all they'd receive is arbitrary data points, no names or any information of that sort. This is one of the first things that is taught in the most basic research design classes regarding the ethics of research. This has nothing to do with any statistical hacking techniques employed by the Council of Bishops.

Furthermore, you aren't understanding the difference between experimental and non-experimental research, where non-experimental research still includes the use of statistics and data acquisition in most contexts. The typical things lacking in ethnographic, historical, etc. research would be control over the studies environment which would decrease internal validity, though that doesn't matter much because you are typically not manipulating an IV in that context, thus you aren't looking to see if your IV causes/influences your DV to a meaningful extent. You can still collect numerical data, though, and run statistical tests (as is often done), such as one of the most simple there is, a chi square (though ANCOVAs and a variety of other multivariate statistical tests can be used). There are literally social and evolutionary psychologists who do quant. analysis on historical records, pamphlets, literature, etc.
Wow I am amazed at how you can persist at this when all the facts in the world could not be more clear. Your little sleight of hand tricks with older documents and partial quotations doesn’t change that. Your tortured mathematical manipulations also doesn’t change that. I am not going to waste much more time on this as its obvious that you are so intent on not being proven wrong that you will go to any extreme to do so.

Here is the full paragraph from the Boston Cardinal O’Malley that you conveniently chopped up

“To put this information in context, there have been to date a total of 250 clerics of the Boston Archdiocese accused of sexually abusing a minor. There are 91 names that are not being included on the lists published today, which can be summarized as follows: 62 names of deceased clergy as to whom canonical proceedings were never conducted or completed and who have not been publicly accused; 22 priests of the Boston Archdiocese as to whom the accusations of misconduct with a minor could not be substantiated;4 4 priests or former priests of the Archdiocese who are not in active ministry and are the subject of a preliminary investigation; and 3 priests who were already laicized or dismissed by the time they were accused, and who have not been publicly accused.”

The total number of accused Priests according to the highest Church official in Boston is 250, just like I said. Despite what you also claim, the majority of these accused Pedophiles were found guilty by Canon proceedings. Only 22 of the accused priests could not have the allegations against them substantiated. So to reiterate these Priests were not just accused pedophiles but the majority of them are proven pedophiles.

How you can still maintain that “The number of pedophilic priests in the area is likely less than 1” is beyond me. Your little mathematical adjustments and machinations almost made me fall off my chair.
 
Last edited:

BigPapaChakra

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
63
As I already cited, that number comes from a citation that Cardinal O'Malley provides for us to look at. You are conveniently leaving out key facts, such as the reality that 250 is '250 to date', and looking at the data from which he got those numbers, it is clear he is at the very least utilizing data from 1950-2002, and arguably data before and after that. The data that he cites also very clearly states "those priests ordained from 1980 through 2003, a period of over 23 years, a total of 8 priests have had an allegation made against them." and as the numbers keep compiling, it only shows the issue becoming less prevalent.

You keep attempting to make it appear as though I'm using sleight of hand, despite the fact that you are either purposefully or ignorantly quoting me out of context. The number of pedophilic priests at the time of the "Spotlight scandal" is likely less than one, though I showed that it may be higher than that, such as 2.29 with about 37.152 who have allegations. Further, you are conflating allegations that go unproven with convictions and proven cases, and further conflating pedophilia with ephebophilia and sexual assault in general (some of these 'pedophiles' who had allegations purportedly assaulted people as old as 17-18 and above, met with the purported victims outside of the church, and then had allegations made against them 30 years later; subtracting these cases, considering they aren't pedophilic even if they are true and not only allegations, brings the numbers down even more).

Your the only one using sleight of hand and misquotations. Your own links, when you actually investigate further, prove you incorrect; but if you do a surface level reading (or skimming), and don't investigate where your "citations" even get their ideas, you'll come up with a false reality.

To end off, I hope everyone actually looks at these citations, I'll requote a citation that is where Cardinal O'Malley gets his numbers from that apparently x-ray peat doesn't want to look at:

"The numbers reported below relate to accusations of sexual abuse of a minor during the time period 1950 through 2003 by an ordained priest. In that time period, a total of 162 archdiocesan priests were alleged to have sexually abused a minor. The number 162 simply reflects the total number of priests against whom allegations have been received in this time period. It does not mean that a determination criminally, civilly, or canonically, has been made regarding the truth or non-truth of the allegation. The number of accused priests represents approximately 7% of the archdiocesan priests who served from 1950-2003.," Further "The vast majority of allegations involve incidents that are alleged to have occurred within the period from 1965 to 1982. The number of allegations involving sexual abuse during the period from 1983 through 2003 shows a substantial decline in comparison to the prior periods."

Now, isn't it also funny how the article linked by x-ray peat from Cardinal O'Malley says there have been 250 people with allegations, and he cites where he gets his numbers, and yet the numbers don't even agree with what he said? Not only do the numbers show O'Malley is reading his own citation incorrectly (or not reading it at all), but he also conveniently left out the fact that even if there were 250 with allegations in the Boston area, this was over a period of a minimum of 72 years, with the vast majority of the allegations being done before the mid '80's, and with a significant portion of allegations being allotted to only 7 people.

This will be my last post regarding this issue, though, regardless of if there is an apparent (surface level) rebuttal to what I say above. I've provided adequate information and citations and if anyone who has been following this thread wants to, they can investigate further. If I post in this thread again it will be to share very easy to verify proofs of things going on, not pure conjecture.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
The number of pedophilic priests at the time of the "Spotlight scandal" is likely less than one
That is all anyone needs to read to see that your quantitative methods and your facile treatment of the facts are completely divorced from reality. The Spotlight reports started in 2002 and had no time period constraints so the latest qualification of your original statement doesn't change anything.

The reason that only five priests were convicted is that the statute of limitation had expired in most cases; not because the majority of accused priests are innocent. As stated by the Cardinal, the vast majority of abuse allegations of still living priests were confirmed by canonical proceedings. The total number of accused priests, both living and dead was 250 priests.

I agree with you that anyone still reading this will easily come to their own conclusions and there is no need to continue this. I would suggest you read some of the Spotlight articles and maybe gain a little insight into the victims of these monsters and not be so quick to assume it was all a vast exaggeration. The Boston Arch Diocese didn't pay out over 85 million in settlements and 5 priests serve jail time if there was only 1 pedophile priest in Boston. Spotlight Church abuse report: Church allowed abuse by priest for years - The Boston Globe
 
D

Deleted member 5487

Guest
I wanted to see just how far down the rabbit hole you are. Judging from your lack of knowledge of basic signs of Masonic recognition I can tell you still have a ways to go. Miles Mathis is throwing out two very obvious occult signs and they have nothing to do with his hands. His crossed arms, representing the skull and bones, and his sideways glance are classic Masonic signs. Also his initials MM are common for the children of masons and also for celebrity stage names. It stands for Master Mason. Finally, though probably by coincidence, his black and white clothing is symbolic of the Masonic black and white checkerboard which represents duality.

When I first started researching the occult and the elite, I too thought it was the Rothschilds and the Zionists at the top of the pyramid. After some time, I realized that there was very little historical evidence to justify that but yet that was what most of the conspiracy sites were saying. It was not until I realized that most of these sites are paid CIA assets through Project Mockingbird and Cointelpro, that I realized I was duped. I then found real researchers and historical works all throughout the centuries that presented an immense amount of evidence that it was the Papal Bloodlines i.e. the Black Nobility who run the Vatican and the European nobility that were the real powers at the top, just as it always was. The elite had learned that it was much safer for them to always have a scapegoat to blame for their actions and the Jews made a very convenient and believable one because of the historical relations between Jews and Christians. The Rothchild’s were always pawns of the Jesuits and served as bankers to the Vatican. Today are a relatively minor banking family of minor nobility. Rothschild Family Wealth

A lot of what you are saying about anyone of any renown is a controlled asset is correct but your still caught in the blame the Jews disinfo. Miles Mathis is an obvious disinfo agent, not because he “tacitly" blames the Jews but because he explicitly blames the Jews. He does so with absolutely no proof or references I would add. A tell tale sign of disinfo is that they blame the Jews for everything and never mention the Jesuits. Masonic Jews and Sabbataen Jews all play a role but they are way down on the totem pole compared to the noble bloodlines and the high level clergy.

I would look into the work of Johnny Cirucci, he is a former Roman Catholic; Illuminati Unmasked: Everything you need to know about the "New World Order" and how we will beat it.: Johnny Cirucci: 9781506156293: Amazon.com: Books and Johnny Cirucci.



At least someone here is on the right track.

Yes the Rothschilds are the "Hofjude" or court jews to the ancient roman familys, or black nobility.
 

boris

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,345
I wanted to see just how far down the rabbit hole you are. Judging from your lack of knowledge of basic signs of Masonic recognition I can tell you still have a ways to go. Miles Mathis is throwing out two very obvious occult signs and they have nothing to do with his hands. His crossed arms, representing the skull and bones, and his sideways glance are classic Masonic signs. Also his initials MM are common for the children of masons and also for celebrity stage names. It stands for Master Mason. Finally, though probably by coincidence, his black and white clothing is symbolic of the Masonic black and white checkerboard which represents duality.
...

Let's follow your proposed logic.



@x-ray peat

x-ray =
a2bfd03166b036b3c5949cd3509d24cc.jpg


x =
crossed-bones-hand-drawn-vector-260nw-379390729.jpg


Your black and white profile picture:
5111.jpg
s-l300.jpg


The band in your profile picture is "The Clash" who use 2 occult symbols, the skull and the lighting:
51icFfnLY-L._AC_.jpg





.....❓❔❓
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
6,511
Location
Chicago
Jordan Peterson is an agent.
Hemingway was an agent.
Joe Rogan? Agent
That one guy guy who talks about linguistics and manufactured consent? Agent
Ray Peat favorite poet Walt Whitman was an agent. Sorry guise.
Anderson Cooper is an agent.
George CLooney is an agent.
Rachel Ray of the cooking channel is an agent.
Karl Marx was an agent.
Hitler and trump too.
Obama.

All those famous rockstars and rappers are agents

Steve Jobs and the guy with the soft micropenis (or is it micro soft?) are agents.

You think I'm nuts huh? Try me.
I do not think you are nuts.
I learned a lot from you and hope you are well.
 
Back
Top Bottom