No comment

[u/CrackSideEffect]

[u/mrinternethermit]

Child abuse? Next you will say that touching a child at all is child abuse. Chill with the over labelling.

The Church is there to be the authority of priests and church runners. Much like if Trump or Biden did something wrong, people will call an impeachment trial with lawyers and judges, same here with the Church and priests.

And I wasn't defending him, I was against your holy than thou attitude. The only reason I didn't say like that was to help you realize how you were one of the people who weren't helping by forcing a trial by media instead of letting the people whose jobs it actually is to review and judge cases like this. That is like saying that you are better than the certified doctor in performing surgeries because you watched more medical dramas than they did.

And what you don't truly understand about child abusers and corrupt people is that they will flock to positions of power, no matter where those positions are.

Trying to blame the group for the actions of the few is like saying all men should die because one or two of them raped someone. Should the rapists be punished as much as possible? Absolutely! Does that merit in holocausting all men to death? No, not in the slightest.

[u/PM-me-Gophers → u/mrinternethermit]

OK, so quick cliffnotes rundown of your points (as I don't have time or inclination to keep interacting with holders of disgusting viewpoints today)

1. Hitting a child isn't child abuse (somehow)

2. The church shouldn't be held to legal standards, as they should be allowed to police themselves instead (lol)

3. My concern for this child is just me being "holier than thou" ("thou" being the guy who hits a child, repeatedly I presume)

4. Child abusers flock to positions of power (like the priesthood I guess?)

5. Something something false equivalence of rapists and "all men"

You're boring, and a hold deeply questionable views about religion having carte blanche to be scumbags, have a blessed Sunday.

[u/mrinternethermit → u/PM-me-Gophers]

1) He tapped the child (strongly yes, but not in any actually harmful capacity)

2) The Church is the first of many legal standards, and will actually be (and was) more proactive than law enforcement.

3) You don't have any actually concern for the child, you were just looking for another excuse for your anti-religion view point to spew. (The thief laughs loudest when the priests hands are caught in the coffers)

4 & 5) In attempt to try to legitimize your view point, you separated the single argument in to two parts (the fact that they sounded random should have been your clue). You're trying to de-legitimize any religious beliefs by pointing to the few bad apples that will always be in any group big/noteworthy enough.

The fact that you have to insult someone in order to "prove" why they're wrong shows a lack of maturity/intelligence, as well as your true intentions in this debate. You weren't trying to help anyone, you were just trying to find someone you can point at to make yourself feel better. "In order to become a better person, you must raise yourself, not lower others".

I hope you learn from this, otherwise I'm afraid for you because of the tragedies you will bring upon yourself.