Talk:Blaming the victim/Archive1

First Example Doesn't Fit
I'm not seeing how the RCC criticizing the NYT for covering the pedophile scandal is "denial of the victim". It's a shameful dodge of the issue, but it's not an attack on the victims. MDB (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is, in a way, in that it makes out the RCC, and Benedict in particular, to be victims when they are widely seen to be the perpetrators. 14:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that part of the Vatican defence is that the current allegations are part of an "orchestrated attack by New York Jews". From MoDo's editorial

This solidarity with Jews is also notable given that Italy’s La Repubblica reported that “certain Catholic circles” suspected that “a New York Jewish lobby” was responsible for the outcry against the pope.
 * Apart from that it's all the fault of the devil and 70's permissiveness.
 * However, your right, they haven't blamed the choirboys yet.Jack Hughes (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's more a case of "Shoot the messenger".--BobSpring is sprung! 14:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

. Bernando Álvarez said that there are 13 year olds who are wanting to be abused, and 'if you are careless they will provoke you'  Spot on: 14:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, that's an example of "denial of the victim". MDB (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientology
Whilst I don't for one second doubt the allegation a few specific instances, with references, would be nice. Any ideas anyone? Jack Hughes (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a little unhappy with the term "child rapist" for the link to info about Gabe Williams' continual abuse of Jennifer Stewart. According to the page to which the link leads (which also uses the term, unfortunately) the victim was 16 and 17 when the incidents of rape took place.  Use of the term "child" there, while perhaps legally accurate (depending on the age of majority in the location the incidents took place) evokes ideas of a much younger victim than was actually the case. This situation was indisputably heinous, but my concern is that the misleading language may be perceived as an attempt to exaggerate the seriousness of the situation.  The Church of Scientology is a monstrous organization, their wrongdoing needs no direct nor indirect exaggeration.  The way Scientology boosters seem to love to abuse language and confuse people, however, I expect any that come along looking for quotes to mine would seize on such things to present as "proof" that their enemies are blowing their crimes way out of proportion due to personal vendetta, casting doubt on other reports of Scientologist wrongdoing. --98.232.209.203 (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, however, that is what the link's title says so it could be equally disingenuous to remove "child". ADK ...I'll murder your lowbrow! 12:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)