• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Weird change of tack in David Quinn's arguments in favour of conservative Catholicism.


Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
64,439
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
Quinn's latest Independent article defending RC reaction displays the man's hard neck yet again. Quinn is now finally arguing (lord be praised) that the safest place for children to be is in the home. Well done, Quinny.

At home with parents is safest - Analysis, Opinion - Independent.ie

I wonder why it was then, that he and Breda O'Brien spent so many column inches (at the time when the issue was institutional and clerical abuse, remember?) underlining how the vast majority of child abuse was carried out by family members and that institutional and clerical abusers were only trotting after fathers and brothers and uncles.

It really does illustrate how Quinn's apologetics work: in short, never let the truth get in the was of the most convenient spin of the moment.

And the spin at the time of course was to concentrate our minds on the factoid that priests were less likely to abuse children than those children's daddies.

Because that was the case being made. Granted Breda O'Brien pushed this particular piece of diversionary obfustication harder, but Quinn peddled it regularly and with the same quasi-horrified dishonesty too. Remember them (and others committed to the same cause) affecting shock and disgust at statistics stating that most abuse occurred within the family?

But now Quinn's brief is to "defend the family", he tells us that it is only natural to expect that most such abuse should happen in the home, and that daddies are grand after all.

Maybe I should be happy at the progress, because the verbiage is marginally closer to the truth than the verbiage then.

But hey, what's a little thing like the truth when you're defending The Truth!
 
Last edited:

storybud1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
6,741
So basically you are saying that every child in the Country should be taken into care?
 

Red_93

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
4,678
Quinn recently went so far as to say that children were even better off being raised by same sex couples than being left in orphanages. No doubt such comments will be resurrected in the event of any gay marriage referendum.
 

Radix

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
10,031
Quinn's latest Independent article in the Indo defending RC reaction displays the man's hard neck yet again. Quinn is now finally arguing (lord be praised) that the safest place for children to be is in the home. Well done, Quinny.

At home with parents is safest - Analysis, Opinion - Independent.ie

I wonder why it was then, that he and Breda O'Brien spent so many column inches (at the time when the issue was institutional and clerical abuse, remember?) underlining how the vast majority of child abuse was carried out by family members and that institutional and clerical abusers were only trotting after fathers and brothers and uncles.
I read the article Toland, and 'the family' he seems to be talking of, is the one based on the marriage of the children's biological parents, backed up by the results of studies comparing the nuclear family with other family forms. It would seem obvious that since most children emerge from this type of family as mature people, then it could be concluded that it is a relatively safe place for most children.

Do you disagree with this?
 
D

Deleted member 17573

I read the article Toland, and 'the family' he seems to be talking of, is the one based on the marriage of the children's biological parents, backed up by the results of studies comparing the nuclear family with other family forms. It would seem obvious that since most children emerge from this type of family as mature people, then it could be concluded that it is a relatively safe place for most children.

Do you disagree with this?
But is the point of the OP not that this is completely at variance with previous statements by Quinn?
 

storybud1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
6,741
Is that a serious contribution to the discussion?
I simply do not know what the post is about? Quinn is stating the bleeding obvious that most abuse takes place within the family. How on earth can that be stopped unless all Children are taken into care?
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
64,439
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
I read the article Toland, and 'the family' he seems to be talking of, is the one based on the marriage of the children's biological parents, backed up by the results of studies comparing the nuclear family with other family forms. It would seem obvious that since most children emerge from this type of family as mature people, then it could be concluded that it is a relatively safe place for most children.

Do you disagree with this?
He has been known to spin statistics in the most dishonest manner possible, so I don't trust the ones he quotes here.

To take one random example of a sure sign of spin, he doesn't even mention the statistics for cohabitating parents in the article, which would appear to be the most obvious comparison in an article defending marriage.

The other thing is he makes the usual mistake of religious reactionaries in assuming that correlation implies causation. It doesn't.

So I don't know whether I agree or not. I haven't got the data.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
64,439
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
But is the point of the OP not that this is completely at variance with previous statements by Quinn?
Correct! A couple of years ago, the idea that most abuse happens in the home was greeted with weeping and gnashing of teeth. Now he deals with the statistics with a shrug of the shoulders.

AND HE APPEARS NOT TO SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS 180° CHANGE IN ATTITUDE.
 

Radix

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
10,031
But is the point of the OP not that this is completely at variance with previous statements by Quinn?
Not as I read Toland's piece.

He seems to be saying that in the past Quinn had said that statistically children were more likely to be abused by external family members than by those inside the immediate family, and since most children spend their lives within this nuclear family, it can be extrapolated from this that children are safest here in comparison with situations outside the family based on marriage. If there are studies to back this up, one can hardly disagree with their results.

And also, to the best of my knowledge, having followed various commentators on David Quinn here for a few years, are not his own children adopted? This if true, would seem to suggest that Quinn is acting without immediate vested interest on an issue dear to his heart of biological children, their protection, parenthood and marriage.

I suspect that Toland and Jack Daniels may be at one where the OP is concerned tonight.

And come to think of it, doesn't Breda O'Brien have children too? Surely it is to be expected that she would go on her own experience of presumably being a good parent, and further extrapolate that her children are safer in her good home than anywhere else.

And furthermore, the poster 'Toland' trades on his bye line of being an 'aggressive secularist'. Now last time I checked, 'secularism' has as its raison d'etre, the desire that the individual should exist principally before laws of 'the state', and secondly to any family form 'the state' might agree with.

I stress 'might'.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
64,439
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
Not as I read Toland's piece.

He seems to be saying that in the past Quinn had said that statistically children were more likely to be abused by external family members than by those inside the immediate family.
Wrong. He was using extremely similar statistics to the ones he used in today's article to express his shock and horror at the amount of abuse that goes on within the home and the family.

He's now shrugging his shoulders at statistics that are essentially identical in every respect. For all I know they might even be an identical set of data.




By the way, "aggressive secularist" is a joke name I use in memory of an ex-Taoiseach of ours who famously used it to chastise Liz O'Donnell.

It should also be noted that I have no problem at all with the State intervening to encouraging the natural parents of children to stay together -- in fact I would consider it a no brainer. Given the absence of any mention in Quinn's article of cohabiting parents (and the majority of children born of unmarried parents live with both their parents -- a fact also omitted by Quinn), I'm pretty sure that's not the agenda that Quinn is defending.
 

west'sawake

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
3,650
Quinn's latest Independent article defending RC reaction displays the man's hard neck yet again. Quinn is now finally arguing (lord be praised) that the safest place for children to be is in the home. Well done, Quinny.

At home with parents is safest - Analysis, Opinion - Independent.ie

I wonder why it was then, that he and Breda O'Brien spent so many column inches (at the time when the issue was institutional and clerical abuse, remember?) underlining how the vast majority of child abuse was carried out by family members and that institutional and clerical abusers were only trotting after fathers and brothers and uncles.

It really does illustrate how Quinn's apologetics work: in short, never let the truth get in the was of the most convenient spin of the moment.

And the spin at the time of course was to concentrate our minds on the factoid that priests were less likely to abuse children than those children's daddies.

Because that was the case being made. Granted Breda O'Brien pushed this particular piece of diversionary obfustication harder, but Quinn peddled it regularly and with the same quasi-horrified dishonesty too. Remember them (and others committed to the same cause) affecting shock and disgust at statistics stating that most abuse occurred within the family?

But now Quinn's brief is to "defend the family", he tells us that it is only natural to expect that most such abuse should happen in the home, and that daddies are grand after all.

Maybe I should be happy at the progress, because the verbiage is marginally closer to the truth than the verbiage then.

But hey, what's a little thing like the truth when you're defending The Truth!
Whatever about any merits or demerits in the above, I for one, am perplexed at his Iona insitute's fence seating on this so called Children's Rights Referendum. Any conservative worth their salt would be against it.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
64,439
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
Whatever about any merits or demerits in the above, I for one, am perplexed at his Iona insitute's fence seating on this so called Children's Rights Referendum. Any conservative worth their salt would be against it.
I've been arguing for a long time that David Quinn is not worth his salt.

That said, he's worth a pinch or two more from the point of view of serious conservatives than the utterly raving John Waters, who's duly lined up on the No side, along with a whole pantheon of shrieks.
 

Red_93

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
4,678
Whatever about any merits or demerits in the above, I for one, am perplexed at his Iona insitute's fence seating on this so called Children's Rights Referendum. Any conservative worth their salt would be against it.
Why? The amendment does very little which is new other than simply allowing the state to treat the children of married parents the same as they currently treat the children of non-married parents, and gives weight to the opinions of children in matters pertaining to their own guardianship.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
64,439
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
Why? The amendment does very little which is new other than simply allowing the state to treat the children of married parents the same as they currently treat the children of non-married parents, and gives weight to the opinions of children in matters pertaining to their own guardianship.
The real and two-fold answer is in your question.
 
R

Ramps

Correct! A couple of years ago, the idea that most abuse happens in the home was greeted with weeping and gnashing of teeth. Now he deals with the statistics with a shrug of the shoulders.

AND HE APPEARS NOT TO SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS 180° CHANGE IN ATTITUDE.
I don't think it's a '180° CHANGE IN ATTITUDE'. To use an analogy: most car crashes occur within a couple of miles of the driver's home(I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but that's not important). That doesn't mean that there is something inherently more dangerous about those roads; it's just that the driver just uses them far more often!

Similarly, since the vast majority of children have traditionally lived with their parents, it stands to reason that most cases of abuse will be in the family home. That doesn't mean that children aren't more at risk by abusers who aren't members of their family; they just aren't in contact with such people as much.

You'd have to look at the stats carefully (re. perpetrators of abuse), specifically the role of step-parents, uncles, cousins, sports coaches etc.
 

Radix

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
10,031
Wrong. He was using extremely similar statistics to the ones he used in today's article to express his shock and horror at the amount of abuse that goes on within the home and the family.

He's now shrugging his shoulders at statistics that are essentially identical in every respect. For all I know they might even be an identical set of data.




By the way, "aggressive secularist" is a joke name I use in memory of an ex-Taoiseach of ours who famously used it to chastise Liz O'Donnell.

It should also be noted that I have no problem at all with the State intervening to encouraging the natural parents of children to stay together -- in fact I would consider it a no brainer. Given the absence of any mention in Quinn's article of cohabiting parents (and the majority of children born of unmarried parents live with both their parents -- a fact also omitted by Quinn), I'm pretty sure that's not the agenda that Quinn is defending.
Fair enough, but my question still stands.

Is the safest place for a child to grow up, within a nuclear family, based on the marriage of their biological parents?

I notice you didn't comment on David Quinn's family based on adoption, who cited the above as an ideal.

And as for your washing your hands of your 'agressive secularist' handle, it is still your bye line.

Dot com and all that....!
 
Top