http://theconversation.com/the-catholic-church-is-headed-for-another-sex-abuse-scandal-as-nunstoo-speak-up-111539
Turns out I could have posted thousands of links and still not covered it all
COVERED the operative word, mums dads police teachers all told victims to stop lying!
Those like them must hold themselves accountable for much of this crime against kids

Belly,

You said "World wide investigations have highlighted not one as bad as the Catholic Church, over centuries"

How about a reference backing that statement?

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«What that means is vigilantism»

At present the worst vigilant is the state, by enforcing its laws on people who never consented to have anything with it.

I'm aware that my attitude towards murderers keeps the door open to vigilantism, but this is just one option out of many and you/me/we do not need to adopt it.

You may arrange the conduct within your consensual group/society in any way you like, so if you prefer, it could even stay as it is. You like having laws? police? courts? then have them, no problem.

The only difference is that you do not legislate for, police or prosecute those who never consented to belong to your society.

So how will your society protect against dangerous others outside? this is up to you: if you do not like vigilantism, then feel free to legislate against it, then raise an army (not police!) that will fight them in an organised way to protect the lives and property of your people.

«Haven't we seen enough of that through social media hyping people up...?»

I cannot tell: I don't do social media, so I haven't seen any.
BTW, one advantage of a consensual society is that you can legitimately legislate against such harmful behaviour and make social-media illegal, whereas doing so at present would be immoral.

«The laws are not a great burden to those who don't try to harm others.»

This could be your experience (perhaps because you belong to a mainstream Australian religion and adhere to mainstream Western philosophy?), but it certainly is not mine. I personally find them stifling (listing how would quickly exhaust my OLO posting quota) and it makes me live in constant fear.

«The rest of society's influences aren't bound by punishments and therefor don't need a law to dictate for them:»

There is indeed no need, yet laws dictate many things even for good people, especially those who are different.

«The point is that if the law doesn't tell you how to live on all of the positive aspects of life»

But it does on some.

To Yuyutsu. You said:

<<I'm aware that my attitude towards murderers keeps the door open to vigilantism, I'm aware that my attitude towards murderers keeps the door open to vigilantism, but this is just one option out of many and you/me/we do not need to adopt it.>>

The issue for vigilantism is bigger then a reaction for murder. It is for the reaction to any crime. Think about it this way. Right now the court systems around the world have the authority to proclaim and enforce punishments on those who do wrong. From a fine, to loss of a business, to jail time, to even removing a parent from their children if they abuse or neglect their kids.

Without the laws and the court, who is there for the person who was mugged, the person who was stolen from, the person who was vandalized, or for the child that isn't fed. For each of those situations the only person there is the person being harmed, and possibly if they are lucky another person giving outside help. But what options do they have? What they can do is to do harm back to those they can, and create a state of injustice through overreaction and unjust reactions. They can not fine or jail the other person. Or force them to pay back a penalty for the harm they've done. These lesser actions that might fit certain crimes will go away, and in it's place will be only the harshest of reactions. Making every crime a potential for vigilantism.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Regarding mob justice, consider this situation. A group of like minded people get angry over one thing or another, and decide to take it up to the person they are angry with. To fit the stereotype (and make the point clearer) imagine the group seeking mob justice going to a private residence with pitchforks and torches, ready to inflict whatever they think is "deserved." This can range from employees being fired, to people in the "#metoo" movements. Without the courts and the police to draw the line for fair punishments and courts to hear the cases, it only invites worse situations.

Yuyustu you said:

<<This could be your experience [regarding the law not interfering with most of life's activities], but it certainly is not mine. I personally find them stifling, and it makes me live in constant fear.>>

This sounds like an exaggeration. If you have an example that makes you live in fear, I'll take it into consideration. If you can give an example, then it might be worth addressing that fear or that law.

There is a bigger issue then your personal reactions or mine. Those don't count compared to the infrastructure created in the absence of police, judges, and governments. What it comes down to is mass vigilantism. What that would look like is urban warfare. With today's technology and weapons, that means a very unstable society. So while I don't know what is stifling to you or puts you in a state of fear, I do know that a state of ongoing civil urban war is not one I will ever support. Even if that means people are stifled not giving consent so have to have hunting license if they want to hunt (whether they want to pay for it or not); have speed limits regardless if they consent to them or don't; having a law against fireworks being used in areas that could spark a brush fire; or any other law that is stifling to a person in one way or another.

To Belly and Is Mise.

Perhaps a third perspective can help?

Billy. One point that Is Mise keeps driving at is a source reference for the accusations. And to that point I relate to it. Christians in conversations are constantly held accountable to accusations that happened centuries ago, by someone else entirely, or are unjustified and just a vague feeling towards Christianity without a direct event.

Having a reference to back up the accusations can restrain the accusations to the situations that occurred, instead of having Catholicism or all Catholics on the stand to defend what they didn't do.

Is Mise. The driving point of Belly's against pedophilia is one of value against the Catholic Church. One of the big teachings from Jesus is to repent and turn from your sins. If there is any truth to the stories of the Catholic Church moving priests and bishops around so they don't have to face the law, then that is a huge issue. The organization as a whole needs to look at itself and consider how to reform itself to actively turn from this behavior. Doing nothing and hoping it will ho away won't work.

(That said, every organization that has pedophilia in it's ranks that get away with it needs to do the same. Atheist orginizations, schools, Hollywood, or anything else.)