Scarf Melee at Playland Amusement Park

Argus · September 8, 2011

Hell, it's a well know fact that Catholic priests have screwed lots of little boys over the years. I guess by your reckoning, that makes the rest of us a bunch of pedophiles?

Are you saying you're a Catholic priest?

Are you saying the organization which is made up of Catholic clergy known as the Vatican, and its subsidiary management structures which are made up of priest and bishops does not bear responsibility for the fact that they ignored the problem, or that, in many cases, they tried to cover it up, and moved priests away from areas where they had molested children, only to move them into other areas where they were free to continue?

There are many Muslim terrorists, but their numbers are a tiny part of Muslims as a whole. This is unquestionably true.

However, there are also many Muslims, still a minority, but far greater in number, who support terrorism - as long as it's against someone else, most particularly, against Kafirs, against heretics, against unbelievers. Still, they are very much a minority among Muslims worldwide.

Then there's another group, far larger, and probably a majority, or close to it, which now embraces a very, very conservative form of Islam, with all that entails, including embracing Sharia law, the cutting off of hands, the stoning of women, and extreme suspicion and willingness to embrace discriminatory laws and violence against heretics and non-Muslims. And you have that happening from Egypt to Pakistan, from Malaysia to Indonesia. And it's not improving, it's getting worse.

Let's examine, for example, this case Persecution of Ahmadiiyya

You would have it that the only people I should judge badly are the 1500 Muslim fanatics who attacked the 'heretics' and beat three of them to death. Maybe you would also agree the police who stood by and did nothing bear some responsibility, and the religious minister, who condemned the sect and called them heretics, and perhaps the judges who sentenced the killers to a few months in jail? And yet the minister is a member of the government, so we really can also judge the government badly, too. On top of that, these 1500 fanatics didn't spring stillborn from the ground. They're simply the tip of the iceberg in the same way we say that one letter writer probably represents the feelings of a hundred angry people. There is growing religious mania in Indonesia, as there is in Pakistan, as there is in Egypt and elsewhere. And yes, so I judge the Muslim world badly, for there are many, many, many voices of anger and fanaticism and extremism, and very, very, very few of moderation and tolerance. Those societies seem to be producing a plethora of individuals willing to fight and kill and die for extremist religious beliefs, but very, very few willing to fight and die to defend against them.

Saipan · September 9, 2011

Hell, it's a well know fact that Catholic priests have screwed lots of little boys over the years.

They were homosexuals before they were priests, or hockey coaches, or teachers.

Sir Bandelot · September 9, 2011

Fine, so then we can agree, the actions of these perverted priests, despite being protected by religious leaders is not indicative of a culture.

cybercoma · September 9, 2011

They were homosexuals before they were priests, or hockey coaches, or teachers.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing. I have absolutely no tolerance for idiots that conflate those two things.

Argus · September 10, 2011

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing. I have absolutely no tolerance for idiots that conflate those two things.

In point of fact, even though this is a ridiculous detour from the title of this thread, very little of what happened with the Catholic priests can be described as pedophilia. The great majority of the victims were teenage boys, and that is above the age target of pedophiles. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude a substantial portion of the guilty priests were homosexuals.

cybercoma · September 10, 2011

In point of fact, even though this is a ridiculous detour from the title of this thread, very little of what happened with the Catholic priests can be described as pedophilia. The great majority of the victims were teenage boys, and that is above the age target of pedophiles. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude a substantial portion of the guilty priests were homosexuals.

Which would still have nothing to do with the point of contention against them: they are rapists. Their sexual orientation is completely beside the point.

jbg · September 10, 2011

Which would still have nothing to do with the point of contention against them: they are rapists. Their sexual orientation is completely beside the point.

Was there pedofilia at Playland?

Sir Bandelot · September 10, 2011

In point of fact, even though this is a ridiculous detour from the title of this thread, very little of what happened with the Catholic priests can be described as pedophilia. The great majority of the victims were teenage boys, and that is above the age target of pedophiles. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude a substantial portion of the guilty priests were homosexuals.

It is beside the point entirely. But the point I raised with the priest analogy was more toward debating the OP. That is, how can you claim to label something a representative of a 'culture', when it is clearly the actions of a few?

And why do we automatically give ourselves every exception, but never others? Could it be that the hate of others, for crimes for which we too are guilty, just widens the divide. But it does not address the problem which is in our common human nature.

Back to the scarf melee, it looks ot me to be just a bunch of mis-behaving individuals. The OP also indicates they were fighting among themselves. I raised this point earlier, but none of you want to pick up on this. Were they fighting among themselves? If so, why. That would seem to say, some of them found the behaviour of others to be unacceptable.

jbg · September 10, 2011

Back to the scarf melee, it looks ot me to be just a bunch of mis-behaving individuals. The OP also indicates they were fighting among themselves. I raised this point earlier, but none of you want to pick up on this. Were they fighting among themselves? If so, why. That would seem to say, some of them found the behaviour of others to be unacceptable.

I doubt that anyone involved in the melee would want to speak about the reasons for any fighting since it would be fully admissible in trials.

Argus · September 10, 2011

Which would still have nothing to do with the point of contention against them: they are rapists. Their sexual orientation is completely beside the point.

I believe there is a moral difference between men, even those in positions of authority, who seduce underage teenagers, and 'rapists', which I continue to think of as men who force others to submit through physical force, threats and weapons.

I grant you that in some cases that moral distinction might be a thin one, but in most it is definitely there. I do not put the teenage boy who accepts hockey tickets, hockey sticks and other presents in return for sex as being in the same category as one dragged into bushes, beaten and raped.

cybercoma · September 10, 2011

I believe there is a moral difference between men, even those in positions of authority, who seduce underage teenagers, and 'rapists', which I continue to think of as men who force others to submit through physical force, threats and weapons.

I grant you that in some cases that moral distinction might be a thin one, but in most it is definitely there. I do not put the teenage boy who accepts hockey tickets, hockey sticks and other presents in return for sex as being in the same category as one dragged into bushes, beaten and raped.

People that are raped usually know their attacker. And, I would say that abusing a position of trust is just as bad, if not worse.

bloodyminded · September 14, 2011

And in fact, the overwhelming mjaority of rapes involve "acquaintance rape." Stranger-rape doesn't even reckon, comparatively speaking.

However, I agree with another of Argus's points, which he has reiterated elsewhere: sex with a (teenaged) minor does not constitute "pedophilia."

cybercoma · September 14, 2011

And in fact, the overwhelming mjaority of rapes involve "acquaintance rape." Stranger-rape doesn't even reckon, comparatively speaking.

However, I agree with another of Argus's points, which he has reiterated elsewhere: sex with a (teenaged) minor does not constitute "pedophilia."

It doesn't, but any of the cases I heard of about priests raping children was just that... priests raping children. I don't recall any of them being teenager; however, if they were then it wouldn't be a case of pedophilia, it would simply be rape. And, it would still have nothing to do with their sexual orientation and everything to do with the fact that they are predators.

There isn't something special about homosexuals that make them a rapists. The overwhelming majority of rape cases are heterosexual because the majority of people are heterosexual. There's probably a similar proportion of rapists that are homosexual as there are that are heterosexual. My point is only that sexuality has nothing to do with whether or not a person is a rapist.

Pedophilia could be considered a sexuality, which when acted upon is rape, but pedophilia is not homosexuality, regardless of the gender of the victim. Pedophilia, by definition, is an attraction to the androgyny of the yet-to-mature body of children. Someone that rapes young boys, may not have any attraction whatsoever to adult men. I get all of that.

bloodyminded · September 14, 2011

It doesn't, but any of the cases I heard of about priests raping children was just that... priests raping children. I don't recall any of them being teenager; however, if they were then it wouldn't be a case of pedophilia, it would simply be rape. And, it would still have nothing to do with their sexual orientation and everything to do with the fact that they are predators.

There isn't something special about homosexuals that make them a rapists. The overwhelming majority of rape cases are heterosexual because the majority of people are heterosexual. There's probably a similar proportion of rapists that are homosexual as there are that are heterosexual. My point is only that sexuality has nothing to do with whether or not a person is a rapist.

Pedophilia could be considered a sexuality, which when acted upon is rape, but pedophilia is not homosexuality, regardless of the gender of the victim. Pedophilia, by definition, is an attraction to the androgyny of the yet-to-mature body of children. Someone that rapes young boys, may not have any attraction whatsoever to adult men. I get all of that.

I agree. The majority of pedophiles--whether they are specifically attracted to boys or to girls--are not defined, sexually, as only pedophiles; they are usually also sexually attracted to adults, and are usually heterosexual.

Homophobic myths to the contrary.

cybercoma · September 14, 2011

My problem was with Saipan saying priests, hockey coaches and teachers that rape children are "homosexuals", rather than the properly identifying them as pedophiles or rapists. That these people in authority take advantage of children has nothing to do with homosexuality.

bloodyminded · September 14, 2011

My problem was with Saipan saying priests, hockey coaches and teachers that rape children are "homosexuals", rather than the properly identifying them as pedophiles or rapists. That these people in authority take advantage of children has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Oh, I understand, believe me. I think we're all aware of this sort of foolishness from Saipan.

Sir Bandelot · September 14, 2011

It is completely off topic with the scarf melee.

However let me point out that in ancient Roman times, sex between men and boys was acceptable. Now look toward the Roman Catholic church. Priests are expected to be celibate. Women are viewed as pitiable and even, contemptible. For a priest to have sex with a woman would be a sin, but not so with a boy, as evidenced by how widespread the problem is, and for how long it's existed. It's not a leap of the imagination to believe what we're seeing is an age-old "tradition" within the church, considered an acceptable method of relieving ones self of sexual urges without committing an 'unclean' act with a woman. So it's about gender as well, though you will never find a Pope to admit it.

jbg · January 25, 2012

Back to the scarf melee These are the most recent legal developments (link, excerpts below):

RYE — Dalia Nazzal is glad that a dark chapter of her life is finally over.

Almost five months after a full-blown melee at Playland Amusement Park, the Spring Valley resident, an 18-year-old freshman at City College in Manhattan, accepted an offer from the government that will wipe out a disorderly-conduct charge lodged against her.

She and her mother, Noor Jaber, were two of 14 Muslim-Americans who accepted adjournments in contemplation of dismissal in Rye City Court on Tuesday. The settlement allows them to maintain their innocence and have the charges against them dismissed if they’re not arrested again before March 20. The 15th defendant in the case was home sick in Brooklyn but is expected to get the same deal, said their lawyer, Lamis Deek.

*****************

“It’s a good offer,” said Deek, who specializes in civil rights cases and injustices against Muslims. She said the defendants plan to file federal civil rights lawsuits against the county as their next step.

Deek said most adjournments in contemplation of dismissal have a six-month window where the defendant has to stay out of trouble, so the fact that her clients got just two months “speaks volumes” about their innocence. Deek also thanked the assistant district attorney assigned to Rye, Valerie Livingston.

I have no particular reason for these youngsters to wind up with a criminal record, or go to jail. I have two serious problems with the above result:

That the "re-arrest" interval is two months, not the normal six months; and
That they are free to file an action against the County.

I suspect that the defense counsel are nervous that their clients will re-offend, so sought a short period. Further, as a County taxpayer, I am appalled that the County could be sued. There is no question that the wearers of head scarfs knew or should have known that they were forbidden. The signage is clear, and the common sense need for the regulation is obvious.

The parties paying for this nonsense are people like myself, who pay taxes and obey the law.

I suspect that the very short two-month window, and the ability to sue, are a cave-in to fears of violence.

LonJowett · January 26, 2012

Back to the scarf melee

I agree. Enough with everyone else's prejudices! Let's focus on jbg's prejudices!

jbg · January 26, 2012

I agree. Enough with everyone else's prejudices! Let's focus on jbg's prejudices!

Fine.

I like cheddar and Swiss cheese. I dislike American cheese. That's a prejudice.
I like Asics running shoes. That's a prejudice.
I like Toyotas more than Hondas and more than most American cars. That's a prejudice.

Michael Hardner · January 26, 2012

Fine.

I like cheddar and Swiss cheese. I dislike American cheese. That's a prejudice.

I like Asics running shoes. That's a prejudice.

I like Toyotas more than Hondas and more than most American cars. That's a prejudice.

Those aren't prejudices - you have tried each of those things and decided you didn't like them.

You can't do the same thing with a person - sample one aspect of their personhood in isolation and decide if you like it.

jbg · January 26, 2012

Those aren't prejudices - you have tried each of those things and decided you didn't like them.

You can't do the same thing with a person - sample one aspect of their personhood in isolation and decide if you like it.

Except that a poster was asking the Board to evaluate my prejudices. I was trying to help out with the process.

Michael Hardner · January 26, 2012

Except that a poster was asking the Board to evaluate my prejudices. I was trying to help out with the process.

This is my point. You didn't list any real prejudices to start with.

jbg · January 26, 2012

This is my point. You didn't list any real prejudices to start with.

Nor did anyone except for an oblique reference to my "prejudices".

Michael Hardner · January 26, 2012

Nor did anyone except for an oblique reference to my "prejudices".

Look - YOU just said you were trying to help out by listing your prejudices. This is all sort of nonsense anyway, so we likely don't need to parse this further.

Maybe the other poster can be more specific about your prejudices.