> ones who have been involved in abuse scandals in the past (Churches, Scouts, etc)
And those groups still have lower rates of abuse than Schools which do a lot less training and enforcement of youth protection policies.
Children are still safer in Scouts and churches than in schools.
Just about every kid goes to school though, so people just prefer to sweep that under the rug and focus on targeting organizations they are not a part of or disagree with because they're easier to demonize and make fun of.
I work with kids, and I've had to take the Scouts and Catholic Church's youth protection training. They are both free to take online if anyone wants to check it out.
And those groups still have lower rates of abuse than Schools
What evidence do you have of this? The only sources I can find that would even vaguely support your claim switch to talking about physical abuse in schools, or sexual assault committed by fellow students.
To be clear, we're discussing the sexual assault of children by adults here. We're not talking about physical abuse, nor are we talking about assault by fellow students.
Ya I personally don't believe it myself. Schools have legal demands on reporting. Every church I had went to when I was young covered CSA up and ensured the perpetrators were never brought to justice.
So something like 1 per 100,000; which of course is still 1 too many.
(The other comments in other branches seem to prove my point. I am not defending any institution by the way. No one should be covering up crimes and/or allowing criminals to victimize people further.)
A rate is just a ratio between two quantities. You've never heard speed defined as the rate of movement?
I might have interpreted your example as such if not for the "one too many" comment. It's strange to throw out a completely fictitious figure and then lament it as if it's real.
see how your patience has been rewarded... no good deed goes unpunished. he will never produce an actual figure. look at his other replies. such a victim complex. on behalf of the catholic church. regarding their sexual abuse of minors. what more is there to say?
Please note, this is not where I got my figures years ago, as I no longer have access to that source.
> Public Schools ~450 per 100,000
> Boy Scouts ~100–200 per 100,000
> Protestant Churches Likely 1–5 per 100,000
> Catholic Church (Priests Only) ~1 per 100,000
Also note, something like 90% of the Boy Scout sexual abuse cases were prior to the 1970s before they started mandating adults to take youth protection training. Today, the Boy Scouts and Catholic Church have some of the most comprehensive youth protection traing around, way better than any schools' youth protection training according to educators that I've talked with.
Good riddance. Go sharpen your ideological axes somewhere else.
No, it seems more like you are being disingenuous. All you have to do is drop a link to the rates you’re referring to. Instead you’re just arguing semantics. Where’s the receipts?
I thought adding "for example" at the end was just unnecessary redundancy, but I guess I was wrong.
I still don't understand why the other person is trying to cross-examine me on the definition of "rate" or whatever though. That is the person arguing semantics, not me... (Same with you, except you're going one step further and trying to gaslight me.)
I'm curious, do you have something against churches and/or Scouts?
No, you said explicitly that kids are sexually assaulted at a higher rate in schools than they are in churches or scouts.
You clarified that you mean per 100,000 children more are likely to be sexually assaulted in schools.
Usually when someone has a belief like this, it’s grounded by something that they read or learned somewhere. Where did you learn this? Why aren’t you sharing the source with everyone else so they can learn it too?
But there’s still nuance there that you’re ignoring as well. We could say that rate should be examined per hour because a kid will spend 30 hours per week at school vs a few hours per week at scouts or church. Without your source though, we have no idea what the rates are, if they are what you say, if there’s even a significant difference, etc.
Now you’re trying to act like a victim because people want clarity on what exactly you mean and where you learned it.
Nobody is “gaslighting” you, just give the receipts.
Just read my last comment I posted two hours before you posted yours?
> you’re ignoring as well.
You're assuming facts not in evidence.
> We could say that rate should be examined per hour because a kid will spend 30 hours per week at school vs...
"Don't worry Timmy, even though you were molested at school, because you're forced to go there every (week)day and spend more time there than church, Boy Scouts, etc, you statistically had less of a chance per hour of being molested."
Per hour makes zero sense.
Do you have something against churches or scouts? I can't imagine why you are being ao convoluted otherwise.
> Nobody is “gaslighting” you, just give the receipts.
I already gave the "receipts". Stop trying to gaslight me.
...
FYI everyone else: the Boy Scouts has a "two deep" leadership policy, meaning no private one-on-one contact between youth and adults. That's why 90+% of cases were from over 50 years ago. And don't believe everything you read on reddit, because I saw one comment where someone claimed they were abused as a kid by their troop manager... No one who actually was a Scout would call their Scoutmaster a "troop manager". It almost certainly was someone who was ideologically opposed to Boy Scouts. (If someone can teach me how to use reddit's aweful search function to find that comment, I'll gladly provide that "receipt".)
> I already gave the "receipts". Stop trying to gaslight me.
Not to me and not when I asked. And you just applied waaaay more effort than it would have taken.
> Don't worry Timmy, even though you were molested at school, because you're forced to go there every (week)day and spend more time there than church, Boy Scouts, etc, you statistically had less of a chance per hour of being molested.
No, but as a parent it becomes part of your risk assessment when deciding if you want your kid to become an altar boy.
> you just applied waaaay more effort than it would have taken.
I have no idea what you mean by that. I'm guessing it's some kind of jab that didn't land.
> as a parent it becomes part of your risk assessment when deciding if you want your kid to become an altar boy.
"Timmy, remember when I told you that you should keep your private parts private, to only let the doctor touch them while wearing gloves during at the doctor's office, and to let me know if anyone touches them, tries to touch them, stares at them, or asks to see or touch them; to let me know right? That still stands. The robe goes over your clothes, you don't need to undress at church or at school. And do you remember how if someone tells you to keep a secret from me, and it's not something like a birthday surprise for me, that you should tell me. God is not going to be mad at you if you do what's right, God will be mad at someone if they try to take advantage of you, no matter what their position is."
Yes, everything has a risk assessment. Singling out a more rare risk shows that you have a bias. It has been very obvious for a while that you and a few other users have a bias. I don't know why, but I hope you heal or get better/smarter.
Being ganged up on by you all is tiring. Anyone who doesn't have a bias can see this comment chain for what it is. I'm going to move on with my life, and if you want to be happier with your lot, you should too.
>No one who actually was a Scout would call their Scoutmaster a "troop manager".
I was a scout and I natively speak Spanish, so I never learned what the ranks are called in English (and after nearly 30 years I've pretty much completely forgotten them in Spanish too, if I'm being honest). Are you going to call me a liar too?
Wow, you all do not stop. You've been grinding your ax so long now, it could cut a hair. If you were a Scout, you would know your ax should not be that sharp.
No, I'm not going to call you a liar since you didn't specify the Boy Scouts of America and there are 100+ Scouting programs in different countries across the world.
The Boy Scouts of America program has only been in English until just last year (they just released the Spanish version of their Handbook last year, and now they have a Mandarin version too). Anyone who doesn't know the world "Scoutmaster" and claims to have been in the Boy Scouts of America, is very odd... I'm only calling those people liars.
Holy moly. If you thought I was calling you a liar, perhaps you should stop posting. But if you want to continue to grind your ax, since you asked me a question, I'll ask you one: do you have a bias?
Ironic phrasing, given the Catholic Church wants authority to decide what is demonic while acting like demons. Why is the comment so plainly aggrieved? Is the Catholic Church a victim here?
Even as your sanitized claim, where is the evidence?
I'm not a Catholic (nor religious at all), and do question whether schools truly are worse than churches in terms of how children are treated.
But that's not the point. You made up a quote I didn't say ("demonization"), and accused the former poster of doing something they weren't: defending the church.
Saying that schools are worse yet ignored is not defending the church. It may also be incorrect, but that's a separate assertion.
That was in the comment that started this chain. Are you using an alt? I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to follow. If I were you I would take a breath and read the chain again.
Here I'll help you:
> Just about every kid goes to school though, so people just prefer to sweep that under the rug and focus on targeting organizations they are not a part of or disagree with because they're easier to demonize and make fun of.
In what world is that useful to your sanitized claim? Is it not an obviously underhanded apology for the conduct of the church? Is the aggrieved nature of this really lost on you?
Some HN users probably are, but not all, and I doubt not a majority. A majority might not be religious, but not being religious does not automatically mean anti-religion. There are occasionally comments that show an espousal of a god that do get upvotes.
Calling someone's god, an "imaginary friend" is probably a trait of someone very anti-religious though. I haven't read all the different religious texts, but I highly doubt any of them call their god a friend. Perhaps Jesus could be considered friendly, but I don't think the Bible says that a Christian must consider Jesus as their friend. I think it's more like how parents should be parents and not friends. I imagine in most if not all relgions, gods should be gods and not friends.
Please tell me which part of your brain is engaged when you converse with your imaginary friend?
Is that really the best reply you could conjure? Maybe you can produce some evidence absolving the Catholic Church here? Or are you also an apologist for institutions that call themselves sacred engaging in systemic sex abuse?
While I am as anti religious as you, probably not the best discussion method.
Instead ask them if their church ever taught them anything on how to prevent sexual abuse, in both children or adults. Quickly you'll find the apologist for the church saying it's not the churches job even though they are in charge of children and vulnerable adults almost all the time.
FWIW, the Catholic Church and the other Church I go to, both require training on how to prevent abuse, sexual and otherwise, towards children, if you're in a ministry that works with children. That's why their rates of abuse are lower than other institutions such as schools.
I must be misunderstanding something, because I can't imagine that training would-be predators would significantly reduce the rates of abuse.
Perhaps I'm mischaracterizing it, and it's about training those around potential abusers on how to recognize signs of abuse and adopt tactics that prevent it? Or it's about training _children_ to recognize what's unacceptable and how to report it safely? Or something else entirely?
Regardless, your conviction in the efficacy of the training grabs my interest. Could you share more about it so I'm not working off of incorrect assumptions?
You also mentioned that their abuse rates are lower than schools. Do you happen to have a source for that — I’d be interested in educating myself on that as well!
And those groups still have lower rates of abuse than Schools which do a lot less training and enforcement of youth protection policies.
Children are still safer in Scouts and churches than in schools.
Just about every kid goes to school though, so people just prefer to sweep that under the rug and focus on targeting organizations they are not a part of or disagree with because they're easier to demonize and make fun of.
I work with kids, and I've had to take the Scouts and Catholic Church's youth protection training. They are both free to take online if anyone wants to check it out.