Posts by lonebadger6

I still don't get how people can't see—or maybe they do, and the moderators are just sitting on their hands waiting to make a call—that what Jessica Kelly4 is saying is the only logical way to handle this...

Like I said before, I'm pro-choice. It’s pretty common for me to get some side-eye when I read certain posts from the pro-life crowd.

If the reasoning was that we shouldn't allow any discussion regarding the politics abortion debate on "Politics," then fine. You could just move to "Religion" and say, look, we aren't discussing this under Politics because the current state law on the matter is settled enough...

But to have the topics available while simultaneously preventing one side from expressing the core principles behind their entire argument and the root of the conflict... that's just absurd... 🤷

Of course, it all comes down to how you frame it. Those are the subtle nuances we see in other threads and across the whole forum anyway—like the massive difference between saying "in my view, abortion is murder" and actually telling a woman who had an abortion, "you're a murderer."

I don't really get these arguments against calling abortion murder... I mean, isn't that basically the whole reason people disagree on this in the first place?

Look, I'm pro-choice, but I honestly don't see the point in all this constant bickering.

Either just ban the > entirely on the platform. If you allow the discussion at all, it’s obvious one side is going to claim it's murder. That's the core of the entire issue. They aren't anti-abortion just because they have some vendetta against white corners...

Found it... turns out it wasn't Trešnjevka, but Jedinstvo.

Anyway, this first comes up in early July during the preparations for that USA vs. Mexico match—you know, the one where they were selecting American players from overseas—which never actually happened. The coach for the US was supposed to be Ćiro, who claimed he’d have Zdravko Mamić helping him run the show...

Then, by mid-July, that young entrepreneur and "club friend" Zdravko Mamić offers up 250,000 bucks to buy out Ćiro's contract from PAOK, right after Marković stepped down.

And then, August 30, 1991:

The well-known soccer official from Sesvete, Zdravko Mamić, who was hit with a lifetime ban from the sport two years ago, has had his punishment lifted. To recap, back on June 25, 1988, there was an incident during a game between the Sesvete Zone and Jedinstvo involving an official from NK Sesvete, Zdravko Mamić. By being cleared of what was undoubtedly an excessive penalty, Mamić is now free to operate as he pleases, and word on the street is he's already eyeing the technical director position over at NK HAŠK...

If anyone is actually planning to look into this with the FBI or whatever agency handles this stuff, they should probably account for the possibility of typos in the report... since it says "two years ago" but cites "1988," even though the text itself is dated 1991. So, if nothing happened in June of '88, maybe it actually happened in June of '89...

This might be a bit off-topic—though maybe not really—but I was digging through some old sports archives from back in '91 and stumbled upon this little snippet from a summer article around July or August. It basically said something along the lines of "The young entrepreneur Zdravko Mamić is drawing closer to the Maksimir Blue Salon. Having recently had his lifetime ban from 1988 overturned following those incidents after the game between NK Sesvete and Trešnjevka, the final obstacle has been removed... blah blah"

Does anyone actually remember what went down there?..

I don't think the idea itself makes any sense, but that doesn't mean there aren't a few valid points buried in there. Especially regarding this specific topic.
I’m pretty sure Politics is the absolute hardest subject to moderate, but it’s true that we're seeing more and more threads that really should be categorized under "Alternative Medicine"—right alongside the folks posting about swallowing liquid silver or staring at the sun to cure everything known to man... so, yeah, I guess that holds water...

To add to my earlier point, the actual concept behind how appeals are supposed to work isn't inherently flawed, it’s just that the execution is completely broken 😉 You see plenty of moderators jumping in to give their two cents, but that legendary "higher authority" we're all waiting on? They either ghost the entire process or they take forever to show up... and I'm definitely not talking about a twenty-four-hour turnaround here. That higher tier is supposed to be the whole reason this system exists. The point isn't—or at least shouldn't be—about "appealing a warning" or visiting the ban corner just to have the same moderator who flagged you defend their own decision. Of course they're going to claim they were right. The whole idea is to get a ruling from a "higher instance" that actually weighs in. If that higher level isn't even allowed to function anymore, then honestly, just scrap the subforum and delete the thread entirely... Because if you hand out a warning and I feel it was totally unjustified, I want to hear from someone positioned above you—someone who is meant to be completely impartial. I don't want to be told, "No, I'm right, you were trolling." I mean, I already know that's what you think, which is exactly why you flagged me in the first place 🙂

I was just looking at one specific example, though I did say I generally agree with you on the core concept itself. There’s going to be endless complaining regardless, and even worse, if this hypothetical "forum defender" actually sides with the admins, half the people who got banned will start treating them like they're part of the moderation team, no matter how right they might be...

So, my take is that while the idea is fair in principle, it’s just not doable in practice. It feels like some people haven't really grasped what the proposal is actually about. It isn't about picking someone to bicker with the admins over every little thing or every obvious violation that anyone can see from a mile away... nor is it—to touch on what brightcrane56 mentioned—about users being "helpless" and unable to argue for themselves. It’s more about the fact that users are increasingly getting screwed over with the whole "that's trolling, bye" excuse, which is a huge issue right now. I think that's a legitimate problem facing the site, but I don't think this is the right way to fix it.

brightcrane56 said:You're talking nonsense.

Actually, he isn't talking nonsense. The civilizer's whole point is debating whether a specific moderator's ruling was fair or not, rather than arguing about the general site rules. In your example, it’s pretty obvious that claiming homosexuality is a disease is banned on this forum, and everyone has been warned about that plenty of times. You can think whatever you want, but since that's a clear violation, some imaginary forum defender doesn't even need to step in or start an argument...

Setting aside the fact that I agree with phiber and think this idea wouldn't work for a dozen different reasons, the core concept is something else entirely—it's not about someone going around picking fights with the admins just because some user thinks it's perfectly fine to claim gay people are sick or equate them to pedophiles, or to throw insults at Mexicans regarding Royalist history or Americans regarding Nationalists history and all that...

rustydrifter10 said:Now, sure, someone could start a thread to appeal a specific moderation style, and that’s something where a bunch of people could weigh in together. But honestly? It’s just not right to jump into someone else's business when they're appealing their own warning or dealing with a personal situation regarding their account. Most of the folks jumping in don't actually have the full picture or access to the logs needed to judge what's really going on. Just because someone claims they're the only one getting flagged or that certain people are getting a free pass doesn't mean that's the reality; that's usually just how things look to an outsider watching the drama unfold.

I'm with you there; I mentioned before that those broad discussions we started ourselves (if I recall correctly, it was under Anderlon's lead) during the last big meltdown on Reddit shouldn't be revisited like this. I agree it’s not okay for everyone to start poking around in private threads on the FBI board or the Strike Appeals section. That part makes perfect sense.

But then again, even Good is a broad topic, and sorry to bring him up, though I'm really talking about the moderation style you're calling out rather than the guy himself. We've seen threads shut down several times when people were specifically complaining about how things were being handled in that case. You said "enough about him," which implies that what you mentioned isn't quite possible... Good isn't the issue here, it's that anyone is allowed to engage in massive trolling (just a quick note regarding the ex anais situation since I wasn't around—there's no such thing as a strike for lying, but there are strikes for trolling, and the penalties for those who stubbornly refuse to stop are much harsher. Lying is easy to prove, so it's basically just trolling).

All of this comes down to how the site treats its users and the kind of vibe you want to cultivate. I don't know Scott Miller4 or Ombia personally, and I'm not automatically taking sides. But no matter how many times we say "we don't know everything" or "there's more to the story"... anyone seeing a comment get hit with a strike or point deduction is going to assume it's a personal vendetta. Maybe it isn't! But that's absolutely the impression it leaves.

Everything can be explained away. And your question is a matter of opinion. You could hand me a strike right now and be totally justified. I ignored your warning to drop the subject of Good, so technically I'm even off-topic, regardless of how much this thread allows for similar "sub-topics." But you could decide that in this context it's fine and just move on... you could give me a yellow card and 10 points, or a red card and 100 points and ban me. Or you could take a perfectly benign comment and slap a strike on it. For instance, darkhawk's comment about us "trolling the thread" is itself trolling 😁 Well, yeah. He should have just clicked the button... waited 24 hours... and if nobody replied, gone to start a new thread in the appeals section... 😉 It would be insane if he got a strike for that, but you could justify it if he was really getting on your nerves. Given the explanations used for that last Ombia strike, you could probably strike 99% of the people on this site 😉 It all just comes down to willpower 😛

Sophia Thomas7 said:The whole "community advocate" idea sounds great on paper. But in reality? That person would probably only stay popular as long as they’re constantly pushing back against the mods. The second they actually agree with a moderator, they'll just get hit with the usual accusations of being "in league with the admins," and that's pretty much where the conversation ends.

This is exactly why an idea that seems clever on the surface ends up falling completely flat in practice...

Look, what darkhawk said about playing favorites isn't really the issue... the real point is that a whole mob of forum users is going to start losing their minds the second this "defender of the community" aligns himself with the moderators on a few calls without any bias, simply because they happen to be right, which—in a massive number of cases and actually in the vast majority of them—they are...

Well, there’s the real issue right there. We’ve reached a point where users don't even have a say anymore unless they're voting on their own damn selves... There aren't even any threads left to actually discuss how the admins are running things, which just feeds into this growing feeling that we're heading back to those days when the mods used to just crack the whip on everyone...

I’ll just point to one recent example, like Ombie’s card protest... To me, and I’m sure many others would agree—even if we aren't supposed to say it here—it is absolutely insane that someone gets flagged on this forum for a post like that. There's no softer way to put it, though I could certainly go harder if I wanted to... And honestly, it doesn't even matter if the mods try to spin some philosophical justification for their reasoning, only for William Bennett53 or someone else to swoop in and shut it down with a "we already told you, end of story," leaving everyone else, including Ombie, to just sit there and stay quiet. It’s easy to play philosopher... The real issue is that it’s completely irrational for you to want a forum where comments like that actually result in a penalty. I don't think that's actually your goal, but it feels like moderator decisions are far too often left unquestioned, with everyone just covering for each other even when it isn't justified. That shouldn't be how it works, because you aren't—or at least shouldn't be—an "inner circle" positioned against the rest of the community...

No matter how many idiotic card protests pop up, or how exhausting it is to constantly explain that you can't just tell someone they're an idiot under the guise of "just being honest"... it seems like we're seeing more and more instances where totally random bystanders, who don't know anyone on this forum or any of the mods, end up thinking we actually allow people to harass users just because a moderator doesn't personally like them...

And just like that—the debate is over. It’s finished... which is basically just a slap in the face to everyone on this forum. 😉 It’s easy enough to cook up a justification for anything you feel like doing... the real issue is when that excuse is a total slap in the face to common sense, only for the mods to swoop in and shut everything down, acting like they've handed down some divine truth and there's nothing left to say...

Look, even though I’m right there with Sophia Thomas7 thinking a concrete proposal wouldn't actually fly, I still feel like darkhawk is heading in the right direction by suggesting that something needs to be done...

Sure, you don't have to. It's a private forum, your rules, blah blah blah... I get it. But the real question is whether you actually want a community where one big boss can just stomp all over the little guys... I'm not saying that's exactly how things feel on Reddit right now, but it certainly feels like we're heading down that path again. Better to nip it in the bud before...

If you want a fresh look at this second type of nonsense, just look at Guud and the mountain of warnings everyone else gets because of him. Sure, they hand out five different bans like "trolling is forbidden" or "we told you to stop engaging with him," which is all well and good... but the obvious troll and liar is still right there on the thread. The mods clearly know exactly what he is, and the rules explicitly forbid his behavior, yet he stays put... Is he some kind of bait for disciplinary actions? It’s completely absurd, though God forbid you actually point that out. If anyone dares to speak up, they immediately get shut down with some "we already said we aren't talking about Guud anymore" line. Meanwhile, a whole crowd of other users would have been slapped with a suspension ages ago if they acted half as bad. The only takeaway for anyone with half a brain in the case of Guud is that trolling is now officially sanctioned on this forum... as long as you aren't the one doing it, of course...

rustydrifter10, I honestly think we’re looking at two distinct issues here, even if they feel related...

What you're describing happens to me constantly in the mornings, though there isn't really a specific timer involved; I'll log in, open a thread, and maybe fifteen seconds later when I go to hit reply, I'm suddenly logged out again... and yeah, it's strictly a morning thing, right around the same time you mentioned.

But what the others are talking about has always been an issue all day long. It's not quite as maddening as my morning glitch, and it doesn't happen if I stay active—like, if I just drop a few quick comments or replies, I stay logged in—but if I try to write a longer post, I'll almost always get auto-logged out within five or ten minutes, which is pretty annoying...
Unlike what Gary Hernandez4 is saying—though he might have missed the nuance—my message doesn't actually disappear. The login prompt just pops up, and once I sign back in, my drafted message sends itself automatically...

Dana Myers87 said:Honestly, who is everyone here actually terrified of, and what on earth is the reason? This whole situation feels incredibly bizarre... threads getting nuked, posts vanishing into thin air... all because apparently some massive lawsuit is being threatened against this site, or whatever other excuse they're cooking up lately..
It’s nothing short of farcical.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Since when is it considered an offense to simply express an opinion or share some firsthand intel about a company you worked for?

Look, this is a discussion forum. Not a single official rule governing this board has been violated in this thread.

And frankly, by deleting that first thread, you've managed to drive away a truly excellent moderator—someone who clearly couldn't stomach this new policy of scrubbing the boards under these absurd, nonsensical pretenses..

There are countless other discussions floating around on Reddit regarding different employers, covering everything from glowing reviews to absolute horror stories. So, what is the goal here, Mr. Anderlon, admins, and moderators? What are we actually doing?

I am genuinely at a loss. You are actively stifling free speech and preventing people from sharing their actual experiences and information. I was under the impression that we lived in a democratic society.

No trade secrets were leaked, and no private names were exposed. I will say it again: not one single rule was broken.

Look, this is just the fundamental flaw with the internet. I’m not a moderator, and I certainly don't feel any personal obligation to act as a shield for some massive corporation, but what you've laid out here is honestly just pure nonsense... I don't mean that as an insult, because it's really just a common cognitive slip that so many people fall into. You're a real person with a name, a life, and certain rights, of course... but you aren't a person on this forum. On this forum, you're just DigDeeper... Who exactly has absolutely zero rights...Whatever DigDeeper or whoever happens to be hiding behind that handle thinks about this... they're mistaken. There isn't any legal precedent, any moral ground, or even a basic social convention that grants rights to a virtual nickname. DigDeeper—or lonebadger6, if we're being precise—isn't a person, and therefore holds no rights whatsoever. It’s incredibly straightforward, yet somehow people still struggle to wrap their heads around it...

Look, even if you decide to show up here using your full legal name, this is still just a private forum... there's absolutely no obligation for anyone to publish your critiques or whatever opinions you feel like sharing, unless they go out of their way to post something about you first, which would then force them to include your rebuttal or correction... but that's a whole different conversation...

But look, it’s really not that simple, because then you have to deal with this...

There are plenty of other threads in the PDF covering different employers and various experiences, whether they’re good or bad... so I have to wonder what the point of all this is, Mr. Anderlon, and the admins and mods...

You’re spot on here. Now the ball is back in the forum's court, and honestly, this whole decision feels pretty mindless... Someone over at Manning Global decided to go after the site, and now they’re acting all high and mighty toward everyone else. But apparently, it's perfectly fine to post about Walmart, Podravac, Hershey's, Peyton globala, or even that little Starbucks in a small town in Ohio... If you're going to ban those kinds of comments, just ban them all. If you allow people to talk about ninety-nine different companies, you really should let them talk about the hundredth one too. I mean, sure, you can act like a private club if you want, but it doesn't exactly make a great impression...

You're right, and you're wrong. At least, that's my take on it...

I'm just here... waiting.

Laura Harris8 said:Honestly, the whole debate over whether incest should be allowed isn't even the point; people just throw it out there as a way to call the "against" side inconsistent. The guy who started this thread already made it clear why he’s asking.

You often hear the "against" crowd say things like, "They love each other, they're happy, and they aren't hurting anyone." Then, they use that exact logic to drag incest or polygamy into the conversation. It’s a classic move: "Well, if those two love each other and aren't hurting anyone, why wouldn't they allow *this*?" It sounds perfectly logical on the surface, doesn't it?

But let's be real—that’s a pretty hollow argument. Why? Because you could flip the script and use the same logic against the "pro" side. You see people arguing that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples rather than same-sex couples specifically because the former can contribute to continuing the species. But hey, polygamous or even incestuous unions could technically be productive in that regard too, right? So, shouldn't the same question be applied to them?

Look, everyone has their own personal boundaries and moral limits. That's just how humans work. But if we are sitting here debating the merits of homosexuality, why on earth should someone feel forced to defend their stance on polygamy just to prove they're being "consistent"? What is there to prove?

In my view, bringing up these comparisons just deconstructs the actual discussion and shifts the focus toward things that don't even matter. You aren't going to reach any meaningful conclusion by going down that rabbit hole.

That’s a fair point. But honestly, are we really going to try and ban hollow arguments? The whole crux of this debate is whether someone should actually face consequences just for comparing a homosexual relationship to incest—or even just regular incest where there isn't even a power imbalance involved... To me, no. You just have to explain why their logic is completely flawed...
I think it’s a far bigger mistake to punish someone using the exact same logic and reasoning as the guy who started this thread—who, let’s just say, isn't exactly a genius for comparing homosexuality to pedophilia...

So, as far as I'm concerned, here's how it looks...

If you ask me, that just derails the whole conversation and shifts the focus onto things that don't even matter... You're never going to reach any kind of meaningful conclusion by heading down that path...

Maybe a little too much moral high ground here... I really wouldn't want to see this forum turn into a place where people get wiped out just because they don't present their arguments perfectly...

Well, before I sign off, and since it didn't occur to me to head over to Religion, Social Issues, or Politics—where I’d probably end up jumping out a window given how people act on both sides over there—here’s my quick take on what the OP asked...

No matter how right you are, that you’ve got every right to ask this without getting banned, those distinctions between the two types of relationships definitely exist, regardless of how shaky the definition you mentioned might be...

Not that it matters which comes first:

1. Incest is illegal. I'm talking about the actual sexual act itself, not just marriage. Homosexuality hasn't been a criminal issue for ages. Trying to draw a parallel between a felony (which is how the US handles incest) and granting rights to people who are already in a legal relationship just doesn't really hold water...

2. "Incest" is such a massive, sweeping term. What you’re actually talking about—something that should be perfectly legal to discuss openly—is something like a relationship between siblings. But people rarely make that distinction. A parent-child dynamic, which happens more often than sibling stuff, is a whole different beast because one person is inherently dependent on the other, and the situation often involves elements of pedophilia or the sexual exploitation of a minor due to that power imbalance...

Quote:>

graniteridge6 says: I don't get why people are so terrified of actual debate, just wanting to shut down certain topics entirely. If I have a stance and the facts to back it up, I don't feel threatened when someone brings something new to the table... I’m against it—strongly against it—but what really grinds my gears is having these forced boundaries imposed on discussions here, using "common sense" as a weapon to silence any argument that doesn't fit a specific worldview. If you disagree with an argument, hit it with a counter-argument, don't just call for a ban... >

You're spot on, but it feels like shouting into the void. I'm firmly on the "against" side too, but I'm just as committed to having a fair fight. If the logic were actually sound, they'd be banning anyone who mentions pedophilia or necrophilia instantly, but instead, they use a tiny bit of intelligence to claim that incest has absolutely nothing to do with those paraphilias...

And honestly, it's perfectly valid to ask—and then wait for a real answer—why we wouldn't just allow marriages between close relatives, assuming everyone involved is an adult and consenting. It’s just as logical to ask why SmallPerica19 is allowed to say he finds incestuous relationships disgusting, yet some other guy isn't allowed to say he feels the same about homosexual relationships...

There are legitimate reasons why incestuous and homosexual relationships aren't the same thing. But fine, use those arguments instead of just hitting the delete button. Because if anyone actually wanted to think, rather than just blindly following a pre-written script, they could have heard several undeniable points explaining why such questions are even worth asking...

The OP is right, and you are right, but it doesn't matter. The worst part is seeing that level of sheer aggression from "our" side, paired with a massive lack of understanding regarding what the discussion is even about...

Considering this is happening on a site that is, despite everything, significantly more civilized than most other US forums combined, the only real solution is to just pack up and move to a quiet corner of the country... though that's not just because of Mark and his crew...

Megan Torres said:j.a. didn't just start making sweeping statements about atheists out of nowhere; he was reacting to the constant posts and generalizations claiming believers are just plain idiots...

Sorry, but that’s just not how I see it. I’m not saying not a single comment has been like that—though I haven't read every single word here—but there’s this persistent underlying vibe that anyone believing in visions or a glowing Lady is just a moron.
Whether it's on this thread or pretty much anywhere else online, you see believers either folding under it or getting outraged because they feel the whole thing is just mocking their faith.

Now, if you think that kind of attitude deserves a ban too, well, that's a whole other debate, but saying believers were being mocked en masse isn't exactly accurate.

And j.a. was the first one to really start trolling this thread, and he did it hard. Honestly, I think JPK deserved a cardboard warning at some point, maybe not for any specific individual comment, but more because he was basically just picking on him, which I don't agree with even though I actually agree with JPK's actual points... but j.a. should have been carded for the trolling way sooner.

Go ahead, hand out warnings, issue bans, do whatever you feel like, but the way the admin team has been acting lately is just getting unhingamental... You’ve started locking threads and shutting down any debate regarding your own actions or decisions, which doesn't align at all with what was promised when the management change was announced.

This is mainly about the thread Rambo Antilles started, which rustydrifter10 shut down after—according to pretty much everyone here, not just Rambo Antilles—Sam Green73 gave an incredibly rude response.

Most of us who aren't even involved with Rambo Antilles or her specific topics, yet we've been reading this for months, can see how a certain group of people is just picking on her. It’s nothing less than pure cyberbullying... and then she gets met with either outright insults from Sam Green73 or just empty, useless replies from the rest of you.

Let's be clear, those aren't actual responses, they're just ways to enable the bullying. This isn't your typical trolling, leaving a few emojis, or some guy going off-topic who gets a warning for it...

If someone is harassing a user—any user—and won't stop, it's your job to step in and protect them, whether you like them personally or not. If a post gets deleted, then a warning follows, then another deletion and a harsher warning, then it's time to start banning... anyone who is directly harassing others. If someone hasn't taken the hint after three or four deletions and light warnings, just ban them, because you can't treat a single stray comment the same as ten consecutive posts designed to mess with the mental health of Rambo Antilles and other users, or even the mods themselves... though based on some of your replies, it seems like you don't mind one bit, maybe even enjoying how much Rambo Antilles gets under your skin.

To draw a parallel—why was Maminho's ban extended? Because he persistently broke the rules. So why is it okay to mess with Rambo Antilles? Why isn't Maminho still getting those minor warnings for his initial offenses?

That's the crux of it. You have plenty of tools within the forum rules and your own authority to put a stop to this. But you simply choose not to... and it's a pretty ugly look.

Elizabeth Davis said:Honestly, can we just call it quits already? Regardless of my actual opinion on the OP, I can't deal with reading this anymore. Calling someone a clone is against the rules, yet here she is, starting her hundred-and-first thread complaining about the exact same thing... I really don't care if she's Rambo, Bambi, or whatever else they call her, but I think the mods should start handing out heavier penalties for people who keep dogpiling on someone by labeling them a clone.
If she’s a bot, just ban her, and if she isn't, then strip those people of their privileges for calling her Rambo constantly. They're becoming an absolute nuisance to everyone... If they want to tear her down, let them just say she's annoying, irritating, or even worse, but this whole "she's a clone" act is getting old. If they actually used insults instead of these accusations, they'd be racking up way more warnings, and maybe after the fifteenth strike, they'd finally get the hint. As it stands, they could keep this up until the end of the administration...

there you go.

Exactly, it's become obnoxious and just plain disrespectful at this point. It's like they just get their posts deleted or handed some minor warnings, and then they just carry on as usual... At this stage, they aren't just mocking Sam Alvarez4, they're making a mockery of the entire site administration.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I'm just going to pass on commenting anything regarding Catholics... 🙂

Well, obviously you won't 🙂

By the way, even before you edited it, there was already a mistake in the original post—it was clearly referring to the "Catholic clergy." I highly doubt there's any other group out there where such a massive percentage of people are pedophiles, but then again, if you actually understand logic or how scientific research works, you wouldn't go around claiming that taking holy orders somehow turns someone into a predator...

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:there's a link between homosexuals and pedophiles, even if they try to hide it...

The facts:
- even though gay people make up at most 3% of the population in America, they're responsible for a third of child abuse cases

Or not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

That’s some pretty childish logic right there... and just like how—though it's probably a statistic nobody on this forum would want to proudly broadcast—the fact that there's likely a much higher number of pedophiles and abusers within the Catholic clergy than in any other organized group doesn't actually mean being Catholic causes pedophilia...

EDIT: Wrote "Catholics" by mistake, fixed to "Catholic clergy"