No, I wasn't abused by priest, says Vincent

[sochi2014]

Another attempted subterfuge by the PAP IB with a bald-faced lie.

Fact #1: VW is no longer a member of the SDP, having resigned in Aug 2013.
Fact #2: Prior to his resignation, he was the Treasurer, not the Sec-Gen, of the SDP.

Fact #1: I am not a PAP IB!
Fact #2: So what? Do you think any tom dick or harry can be a Treasurer position? A man without an integrity you want him to run Ministry of Finance and manage the people's money??

ARE YOU CRAZY?? LOL!

 

[Leongsam]

Another attempted subterfuge by the PAP IB with a bald-faced lie.

Fact #1: VW is no longer a member of the SDP, having resigned in Aug 2013.
Fact #2: Prior to his resignation, he was the Treasurer, not the Sec-Gen, of the SDP.

That's immaterial. The fact that he was an SDP member and an office bearer and stood for elections on the SDP ticket shows just how poor the SDP is in judging character.

 

[yellowarse]

Do you think any tom dick or harry can be a Treasurer position? A man without an integrity you want him to run Ministry of Finance and manage the people's money??

Name me one incident that demonstrates the man's lack of integrity'. I have already demonstrated your lack of integrity by exposing your lies.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

He did it to show that if the Church couldn't or wouldn't even police its own priests from homosexual-paedophilic activity, it has lost its moral standing to make a stand on the LGBT issue.

Isn't that what I said?

At no point did he make any allegation of specific sexual abuse or criminal activity (against himself) by any priest. 'Attempt to touch' and 'looking at porno magazines' don't qualify as sexual abuse. What's there to investigate?

You're contradicting. If nothing wrong had happened, why would VW mention it in the first place? It is precisely because something wrong had happened, that's why VW brought it up. The reason for your confusion is the fine line that VW has seem to have drawn between "sorry incident" and "abuse" and "damaged".

 

[Leongsam]

Name me one incident that demonstrates the man's lack of integrity'. I have already demonstrated your lack of integrity by exposing your lies.

People with integrity do not allow themselves to sodomised.

 

[yellowarse]

That's immaterial. The fact that he was an SDP member and an office bearer and stood for elections on the SDP ticket shows just how poor the SDP is in judging character.

And how has his character come into question from his Facebook post and subsequent response? Because he was a near-victim of a paedophile?

​​https://www.facebook.com/notes/820561397961785

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

People with integrity do not allow themselves to sodomised.

What do you mean "do not allow themselves" to be sodomized. In this case VW paints himself as a victim who did not CHOOSE the experience.

 

[yellowarse]

You're contradicting. If nothing wrong had happened, why would VW mention it in the first place? It is precisely because something wrong had happened, that's why VW brought it up. The reason for your confusion is the fine line that VW has seem to have drawn between "sorry incident" and "abuse" and "damaged".

Strawman fallacy. VW mentioned that the priest attempted to touch him. You said VW said he was molested. You misquoted him, deliberately or otherwise, and used it to allege lack of integrity. (I pasted the link to the original FB post.)

My point: 'Attempted to touch' ≠ molest

What the priest did – attempting to touch a teenager's crotch – was repugnant and morally wrong, hence 'sorry incident. But it is not evidence of any sexual abuse as the homophobic and anti-SDP camps would like to paint it. If the priest had actually molested and sodomized him, then there would be grounds for police investigation.

 

[Leongsam]

What do you mean "do not allow themselves" to be sodomized. In this case VW paints himself as a victim who did not CHOOSE the experience.

They look like willing participants to me.

 

[halsey02]

Just the other day, a guys hand almost touched my kukubird. Lucky no conclusion.

That day on the train, it was so crowed, the woman's rump, rubbed my front all the time & it raised a "hump"...when she turned around she look worst than the camel's hump...who should I complain to??

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Strawman fallacy. VW mentioned that the priest attempted to touch him. You said VW said he was molested. You misquoted him, deliberately or otherwise, and used it to allege lack of integrity. (I pasted the link to the original FB post.)

My point: 'Attempted to touch' ≠ molest

What the priest did – attempting to touch a teenager's crotch – was repugnant and morally wrong, hence 'sorry incident. But it is not evidence of any sexual abuse as the homophobic and anti-SDP camps would like to paint it. If the priest had actually molested and sodomized him, then there would be grounds for police investigation.

Bollocks! If someone attempted to touch your daughter's privates and subsequently showed her a stack of porn, tell me you won't go straight to the police.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

They look like willing participants to me.

He was not a willing participant in the crotch grabbing game, yet when challenged to file a formal report, he refused. That shows he should not have brought it up in the first place.

 

[yellowarse]

Bollocks! If someone attempted to touch your daughter's privates and subsequently showed her a stack of porn, tell me you won't go straight to the police.

If I played (consensual) wrestling with a girl and attempted to touch her breasts, but never got to within 2 inches because of her parrying skills, you think she'd have a case against me if she made a police report? No witnesses, mind you. It's her word against mine.

Confronted, the priest would just say: this boy has a hyperactive imagination, we were just having some fun wrestling. I never touched his cock. Who would the police believe: a high-standing man of religion, or a wet-behind-the-ears minority kid?

 

[yellowarse]

He was not a willing participant in the crotch grabbing game, yet when challenged to file a formal report, he refused. That shows he should not have brought it up in the first place.

Read the post again. He was a willing participant in a wrestling game; but wasn't too comfortable when there were signs it was going to turn into a crotch-grabbing one.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

If I played (consensual) wrestling with a girl and attempted to touch her breasts, but never got to within 2 inches because of her parrying skills, you think she'd have a case against me if she made a police report? No witnesses, mind you. It's her word against mine.

Confronted, the priest would just say: this boy has a hyperactive imagination, we were just having some fun wrestling. I never touched his cock. Who would the police believe: a high-standing man of religion, or a wet-behind-the-ears minority kid?

If you showed the girl a stack of porn after that, she might be able to piece something against you. Mind you, 15 years old.

 

[Leongsam]

He was not a willing participant in the crotch grabbing game, yet when challenged to file a formal report, he refused. That shows he should not have brought it up in the first place.

I'm not talking about crotch grabbing. I'm saying that people who indulge in sodomy have no integrity.

 

[halsey02]

Bollocks! If someone attempted to touch your daughter's privates and subsequently showed her a stack of porn, tell me you won't go straight to the police.

Unless you does such an act with such subtly, came across a "man of the cloth" ( happen to known the person)....who was found with stack of pornography magazines & once in a while 'draw water" from the "well" ( church's funds) to drink....some were "touched" ( females)....but this came to light after many years....my point is...we are often too trusting with these people, like we trust the PAP with our CPF money...many were "touched"...but they did not run to the police...

 

[Semaj2357]

People with integrity do not allow themselves to sodomised.

another way would be for those with integrity to use only shower gel instead of soap.....

 

[hockbeng]

Don't confuse 'morally equipped' with criminal allegation.

VW brought up the incident not to point to his 'molest' or 'abuse' or 'damaged'. He did it to show that if the Church couldn't or wouldn't even police its own priests from homosexual-paedophilic activity, it has lost its moral standing to make a stand on the LGBT issue. And it's a world-wide phenomenon involving the Catholic Church and the highest levels of clergy, including some prominent cardinals and bishops.

At no point did he make any allegation of specific sexual abuse or criminal activity (against himself) by any priest. 'Attempt to touch' and 'looking at porno magazines' don't qualify as sexual abuse. What's there to investigate?

This shows how dangerous gays can be; esp when in the position of power and authority. Priest or no priest.

It is not the fault of the church that some priests were gay or whatever; i mean how could they tell. There is no gay test when they entered priesthood.
Maybe gays are attracted to this calling since they are surrounded by altar boys and monks!

It is precisely the numerous cases of sexual abuse that the church has to speak out against this abnormal behaviour.

 

[yellowarse]

If you showed the girl a stack of porn after that, she might be able to piece something against you. Mind you, 15 years old.

You've read of such incidents before. Kindly elderly teacher attempts to initiate young female student in the matter of the birds and the bees by showing them porn. How many of these young girls would even dare tell their parents about the incident, much less go to the police?

Don't underestimate the effects of authority, whether in school or church, on clamming up young fearful victims of sexual proposition and abuse. It happens with frightening regularity in Western societies, what more paternalistic Asian societies. Many remain scarred for life.