No doubt you’re correct. He said that “…if you show the data, I will concede the point”. He said ” name my intellectual dishonesty and I’ll leave this site immediately”.

Obviously, it’s contrary to his interest - which I’m assuming, is to enlighten us neanderthals - to either concede a point, or leave the site immediately, so he’ll yield to neither.

So far, I gather that he is:

Anti-Iraq war, though he has not said why.

Anti concern about islamic intentions

Anti anything less than acceptance of homosexality as a fully normal and socially acceptable lifestyle.

What have I missed?

His guess would be that your deductive logic can’t be used by him.

Have you seen the sexual abuse by priest cases covered by the media? I think the answer is “yes”, and would be “yes” by anyone not living in a cave for the last 10 years or so.

Have you seen the sexual abuse by employees in the LA School districe covered by the media in the last 5 years? You’ve already said you haven’t. I think most people would agree with you. Even most people within the LA school district - wouldn’t you think that _every_ parent in the LA school district should be aware of this?

If they are not, why not?

My guess would be that if an actual coverup has not occurred within the district, at the very least, silence has been the policy, and the press has not pursued it with the same vigor as they used in chasing the Priest abuse cases.

Your guess would be…??

As I mentioned before, people with different philosophies will see the same exact data yet conclude mutually exclusive conclusions.

An interesting side note. A group of graduate students showed that all of the presidential candidates in the primary received equal air time and equally positive and negative coverage from left and right-leaning outlets, using statistical analysis, except for one: Ron Paul, who was systematically under covered. There were many theories–that could not be proven–as to why it occurred but it could not be denied that there wasn’t a media bias. You could probably find a similar study conducted on the Church vs. school abuse data. I hope that helps.

Ok..right there.

<>

You may have misunderstood the first time, but I think not the second.

I said: “The point is that the media pursued the abuse of priests with blaring headlines, even when the cases were 40 years old, but scarcely cover the same sort of cases in the public school system when it’s only within the last few years.”

The point - once again - is not whether the public schools have an equal or higher incidence of sexual abuse. The point is that the media coverage is persecutorial towards the Catholic Church, and lassez faire towards the same abuse in the public schools. Your efforts to drill towards “prove that there is the same or more” instead of recognizing that _media coverage_ is the issue being discussed indicates to me that you might have the same mindset as the media has.

You are intellectually dishonest. You come here with an unalterable mindset and would wish to enlighten us poor ignorant conservatives. Your own mind is closed to any ideas other than those already set in place. Now, to a certain extent, that’s a normal, natural and expected thing. We adhere to ideas because we think they’re correct. If they’re correct, though, they can stand a bit of debate. You do not debate. You do not discuss. You expound. You lecture. You gift us with the benefit of your extensive knowledge. Your mind is unready, unwilling, perhaps unable to accept any challenges to the basic tenets which you have decided are to your benefit.

It’s all about _you_.

In other words, you are an ass.