A sucker is born every minute

[Nekojin]

It's abuse of authority, which may not be a crime, exactly, but is certainly unethical, and probably immoral if he's a Christian. And whether it's actually a crime depends on Brazilian law.

[SkullKing]

What's the difference between this guy and a pedophile priest?

The age of the victims.

Just like telling your congregation that they must pay 10% of their money to the church is ok, but a priest trying to do get 10% of a child's money would be committing a crime.

The problem with the pedophile isn´t that he had sex, it is that he did it with kids.

[Andara Bledin]

The problem with it that I have is that it is sexual abuse. What's the difference between this guy and a pedophile priest?

None.

Calling bullshit on this.

Age of consent matters. The victims share in the culpability with the man he conned. Their lack of credulity in no way absolves them of being idiots, nor does it reduce them to the level of children.

It's a disservice to grown adults and child victims, both.

[Panacea]

The problem with the pedophile isn´t that he had sex, it is that he did it with kids.

Hmm. So you're saying that an adult who has been raped is suffering less than a child who has been raped? How interesting.

Age of consent matters. The victims share in the culpability with the man he conned. Their lack of credulity in no way absolves them of being idiots, nor does it reduce them to the level of children.

It's a disservice to grown adults and child victims, both.

Ah, so it's blame the victim then. So a woman who dresses too provocatively is just asking for it, is she? Didn't we just discuss this on another thread very recently?

Sorry, Andara, but I'm going to call BS right back on that one. Victims should not be blamed for being victimized. When you do that, you victimize them all over again. What kind of service is that, eh?

What I was saying with my initial question (what separates this guy from a pedophile priest) is that NOTHING separates the two crimes. They both equally deplorable.

Age is a factor in terms of consent, yes, in terms of all kinds of sexual encounters. But these adults didn't give informed consent; they were manipulated by their religious faith by someone they trusted who was in a power relationship over them.

One act is no better than the other. They're both equally reprehensible and disgusting.

[Andara Bledin]

Hmm. So you're saying that an adult who has been raped is suffering less than a child who has been raped? How interesting.

Wow, nuclear strawman, there. Way to jump from "sex" to "rape" without a hint of hesitation.

And, to be quite honest, I would suggest that, yes, a child who has been raped is likely to suffer more than an adult in a similar situation for many of the same reasons that even consensual sex with a minor is still legally declared rape.

Ah, so it's blame the victim then.

I'm not blaming the victim, not even close. What I am doing is saying that there is a difference between abusing one's authority over a willing participant and abusing one's authority over a participant who isn't even capable of becoming a willing participant.

Huge difference that your statement, as written, completely ignores.

What I was saying with my initial question (what separates this guy from a pedophile priest) is that NOTHING separates the two crimes. They both equally deplorable.

That may be what you were going for, but without that very, very important last sentence, that's not what you said, and since I only have what you said to work with, I responded to what you said.

Age is a factor in terms of consent, yes, in terms of all kinds of sexual encounters. But these adults didn't give informed consent; they were manipulated by their religious faith by someone they trusted who was in a power relationship over them.

But in the case of adults, they were capable of giving informed consent. The fact that their information was based off of lies and deceit is irrelevant to my position.

And while his actions are reprehensible, they are still not as reprehensible as someone who preys on children. Adults have the experience and maturity available to them to protect themselves from this type of assault. Children do not. I don't even know how that fact could be in contention.

[Panacea]

Wow, nuclear strawman, there. Way to jump from "sex" to "rape" without a hint of hesitation.

Sex with a child is rape by definition. So is sex without informed consent.

And, to be quite honest, I would suggest that, yes, a child who has been raped is likely to suffer more than an adult in a similar situation for many of the same reasons that even consensual sex with a minor is still legally declared rape.

I don't think we can easily quantify how people suffer. We step into dangerous territory when we assume one group must suffer for than another. When we categorize suffering like that, we run the risk of minimizing the suffering of groups that might not be popular, or that we feel in some way "deserve" their suffering.

I'm not blaming the victim, not even close. What I am doing is saying that there is a difference between abusing one's authority over a willing participant and abusing one's authority over a participant who isn't even capable of becoming a willing participant.

Huge difference that your statement, as written, completely ignores.

Lack of control is lack of control. It doesn't matter if the informed consent can't be formed because the brain hasn't developed to the point of making rational decisions, or if the lack of control is due to subtle manipulation. You still have lack of informed consent. There is no difference between abusing one's authority over an adult or a child. I'm saying the adult is NOT a willing participant because the act is based on falsehoods and emotional/spiritual manipulation. Therefore the informed part of informed consent is missing and the adult in this situation cannot be truly said to be willing . . . this person would not ordinarily participate in such an act for not the manipulation at hand.

Their lack of credulity in no way absolves them of being idiots

By calling them idiots you blame them for being victimized.

But in the case of adults, they were capable of giving informed consent. The fact that their information was based off of lies and deceit is irrelevant to my position.

And while his actions are reprehensible, they are still not as reprehensible as someone who preys on children. Adults have the experience and maturity available to them to protect themselves from this type of assault. Children do not. I don't even know how that fact could be in contention.

It's very much in contention, because what you say is not true. Not all adults complete the tasks of each stage of mental and emotional development (Erikson). Some aren't well educated. Some adults deal with previous emotional, mental, or physical abuse that makes them ripe fore reabuse.

And no one . . . NO ONE is immune to being scammed. No matter how well educated, how experience, anyone can fall for a con man . . . and that's what this jackass is. A conman in a preacher's suit who took advantage of emotionally vulnerable people.

Adults can lose their ability to give informed consent for a wide variety of reasons. Someone who's been mentally brainwashed loses their ability to appreciate the impact of their actions; they are not making informed consent and are as vulnerable as children.

[Andara Bledin]

Lack of control is lack of control.

Lack of control by choice is not the same as an inability to have control.

If you cannot see that, then there is no point in my continuing to debate this with you.

That and the rest of your rebuttal seems to be against an argument subtly different than the one I'm making.

[HYHYBT]

I don't know about illegal, but it's logically the same sort of slimy as anyone else using a position of relative power to get people to have sex with them. A boss using the same thing as a condition for employment or promotion, or a police officer saying he'll let you off on a charge I seriously doubt would get the level of "it's not that bad" this seems to be getting.

[Nyoibo]

Lack of control by choice is not the same as an inability to have control.

If you cannot see that, then there is no point in my continuing to debate this with you.

That and the rest of your rebuttal seems to be against an argument subtly different than the one I'm making.

If you are told you have to give someone a BJ and swallow or you will die, is it lack of control by choice, if I were to say to you you have to give me a BJ or that man over there is going to torture you, does that then make you a willing participant because you chose?

I don't know about illegal, but it's logically the same sort of slimy as anyone else using a position of relative power to get people to have sex with them. A boss using the same thing as a condition for employment or promotion, or a police officer saying he'll let you off on a charge I seriously doubt would get the level of "it's not that bad" this seems to be getting.

Depending on the country it is illegal, I know the UK and Australia have laws against procuring sex though fraud, in fact there was a case in the UK where a couple of women claimed rape against another woman who was posing as a man and had sex with them.

[Andara Bledin]

If you are told you have to give someone a BJ and swallow or you will die, is it lack of control by choice, if I were to say to you you have to give me a BJ or that man over there is going to torture you, does that then make you a willing participant because you chose?

You have fun moving the goal posts, there.

Meanwhile, I'm going to stick with the actual argument, which is about what should be regarding a group of adults who good hoodwinked by a sick conman who abused his position of trust to convince people to do things that they really should have known weren't necessary.

And I stand by my comment that acted like idiots. Anyone who claims that is "victim blaming" is being obtuse. Idiotic people don't deserve to be taken advantage of any more than sensible people do and such conflations continue to devalue the entire conversation.

[Kheldarson]

Meanwhile, I'm going to stick with the actual argument, which is about what should be regarding a group of adults who good hoodwinked by a sick conman who abused his position of trust to convince people to do things that they really should have known weren't necessary.

And I stand by my comment that acted like idiots. Anyone who claims that is "victim blaming" is being obtuse. Idiotic people don't deserve to be taken advantage of any more than sensible people do and such conflations continue to devalue the entire conversation.

But here's the issue that they're presenting with increasing hyperbole that you're ignoring: you're still calling them names. That lessens them and lessens the crime, in the same way that saying a woman "deserved" it does to her. Just because this happens to be around religion does not make it less of an issue.

Let's put it this way. You're at a money transaction center, and a little old lady is about to transfer her life savings to get her grandson out of jail in Mexico, never mind she didn't even know he was in Mexico currently. But she just got an e-mail from him asking for the money, and she just has to help him.

Now, not being emotionally invested into the situation, you and I both know that this is probably a scam. But, obviously, the lady does not know this, or hasn't considered it. Is she an idiot?

Well, she's falling for the con, right?

The only real difference between the con I presented and the one here is that I'm sure the "pastor" had to build up to it. That means he had to gain their trust and then abuse it horribly. I don't see how that wouldn't be traumatic and victimizing to the people involved.

[SkullKing]

Hmm. So you're saying that an adult who has been raped is suffering less than a child who has been raped? How interesting.

Don´t put words in my mouth. I never said anything close to this. All I said was that the age of the victims changes things from a legal standpoint.


What I am saying is that I do not think this is rape, the same way that a church threatening its congregation with hell if they don´t give the church money(which is fairly common in Brazil) isn´t considered blackmail by Brazilian law.


However if the same church who pulls that on the adults of the congregation used to get something from children(like their lunch money or allowance), I believe they could be prosecuted.

As long as the priest says he honestly believes that his sperm is holy, just like other churches honestly believe that people need to pay in order to go to heaven, they I don´t see how anything he has done can be considered illegal.


I never said that what the man did wasn´t wrong, nor did I say that the victims deserved it. What I am saying is that the religion angle coupled with the fact that the victims are adults makes things a lot more complicated from a legal point of view(if the victims were children it would be pedophilia no question and the judgement would be a lot quicker)


Yes sex with children is rape.

sex by deception is rape, but can we PROVE any deception in a court? it is VERY hard to prove or disprove religious stuff in court(e.g.:"Prove to me your religion is the true one otherwise I will sue you for false advertising")

A church is supposed to preach it´s beliefs, and it is considered the responsibility of the believer to choose what he believes. If a church says the person has to do something as part of worshiping than it is the follower´s responsibility to decide if that church is right for him.(assuming the act isn´t inherently illegal, like human sacrifice)

I think sex without informed consent can be rape, but english is not my fist language and I am not completely sure on the nuances of what informed consent means legally. But in some situations the responsibility of informing shifts. A child or mentally deficient person can´t have that responsibility but sometimes an adult needs to be able to think and choose for himself, that means taking some responsibility for his choices.



For example, let´s say someone goes to a party and has unprotected sex with someone else, and then has some problem. (STD, Pregnancy or whatever) because they didn´t know the risks. (maybe due to religious/cultural reasons her education was severely lacking). It wasn´t informed consent, but it is not the second person's responsibility to have the first take a test to see if they understand how sex works. They are adults.

You could say that the second person needed to inform he had an STD if he knew, but if he didn´t then there was nothing he could do.

[Andara Bledin]

But here's the issue that they're presenting with increasing hyperbole that you're ignoring: you're still calling them names. That lessens them and lessens the crime, in the same way that saying a woman "deserved" it does to her. Just because this happens to be around religion does not make it less of an issue.

Bullshit.

Sure, it lessens them.

It does nothing to lessen the crime. It says nothing about the crime at all. The crime is about the perpetrator, who is either a crazy zealot who needs to be kapt away from people for everybody's safety (one commentary mentioned he planned to pick up his activities in jail), or he's a sexual predator using less direct coercive methods.

Either way, he's guilty of abusing his position of trust, regardless of his motives. The relative gullibility of his victims changes only his success rate, and nothing more.

This hypersensitivity to the slightest hint of victim blaming has got to stop. A person shouldn't have to worry about being attacked merely for pointing out that there are ways to avoid becoming the same type of victim.

[Nyoibo]

You have fun moving the goal posts, there.

Meanwhile, I'm going to stick with the actual argument, which is about what should be regarding a group of adults who good hoodwinked by a sick conman who abused his position of trust to convince people to do things that they really should have known weren't necessary.

And I stand by my comment that acted like idiots. Anyone who claims that is "victim blaming" is being obtuse. Idiotic people don't deserve to be taken advantage of any more than sensible people do and such conflations continue to devalue the entire conversation.

I'm not really, there are many people who believe in the importance of their immortal soul far more than their transient life, if they are told by a religious leader who they believe speaks for their deity and carries out his will that to not do this means to damn their immortal soul, then how is it any different that being given the coice of torture or death?

[siead_lietrathua]

i have to agree that calling them idiots can be a bit harsh. after all, brazil is a different culture that is much more immersed in religion than the US, and religious "brianwashing" is probably more common. sure, most adults are aware of sex and what entails sex. however, it is also easy to follow a charismatic leader into following some pretty sick behavior after he or she has spent enough time grooming the group. manson, anyone?

also, we don't know the gender, ages or etc of the followers. the article only says "followers". they could have been 40 year old housewives or 18 year old boys. for a barely-legal teen who was raised in religion and possibly groomed for a long time before any sexual activity happened... this situation wouldn't be that unbelievable.

that being said, can we PLEASE not compare assault on adults to assault on children.it's like comparing rape of a fully developed adult to one with a mental disability, like comparing rape of men to rape of women. there IS no comparison because of the different situations. ALL victims of rape suffer differently based on circumstances, and comparing them as some sort of justification as to which group suffers more is cruel to all victims. there is plenty of research into how victims are effected in the long term from sexual assault based on their life circumstances, and on a personal level it makes me want to rage when people disregard those differences.