NationStates Jolt Archive

We have a Sierra Leonean allegedly saying it is fine in his country; we have one article saying it was rampant within one program staffed principally by Sierra Leoneans with a few from neighboring countries, with remarks that this problem is caused by hiring people from that culture; and we have a centuries-long history of treating children in grotesque manners, routinely.
This is the evidence, draw from it what conclusions you will.

So...youve got circumstantial evidence and the word of a kiddy toucher.

We have a Sierra Leonean allegedly saying it is fine in his country;

That is the thesis statment. What we are trying to prove or disprove. You can't just repeat it and say it's evidence.

we have one article saying it was rampant within one program staffed principally by Sierra Leoneans with a few from neighboring countries,

No. The article does not say that.

with remarks that this problem is caused by hiring people from that culture;

Nor does it say that.

and we have a centuries-long history of treating children in grotesque manners, routinely.

That is not child molestation. Though horrendous, it is not evidence of child molestation.

This is the evidence, draw from it what conclusions you will.

I conclude that you have no evidence.

I don't think it is "bigotry" to call horrific abuses horrific. They are.
That is not what I said was the bigoted part. You can now start to play dense if you like -- you must be running out of dodging techniques by now -- but I am not going to fall into the trap of just repeating my points over and over for you. I told you specifically and at length what my issue with your comments has been.

This is a peculiarly unfortunate intersection of Islam and Africa: the clash of these in Sierra Leone seems to have brought out all the worst features of both.
Ah, so you're slandering both with one stone.

You hadn't demanded any. I have pointed out that some of the grosser stuff is really inappropriate to link to on this board.
And this is dodge number what now? I demanded proof of your assertion that no one but a Muslim would ever have the name this man has. Your only response was to turn that around and demand that I show proof that anyone but a Muslim would have such a name, but like I said way back then, I asked you first. I'm still waiting.

If you already know that, then do I need to show you more about it? That IS the culture there (along with other forms of mutilation, humiliation, and intense violence), and it has been so for as long as we have any record of the region.

But Sierra Leone is, if not THE worse, certainly awfully close to the WORST in these regards.
Two bigoted and unsupported remarks in a row, repeated while totally ignoring my statement that other areas do the same things, other things, even arguably worse things, but I don't see you blaming other cultures the way you are painting both Africa and Islam as a massive confluence of child abusers/molesters.

So...youve got circumstantial evidence and the word of a kiddy toucher.
That's pretty much it, apparently.

I demanded proof of your assertion that no one but a Muslim would ever have the name this man has.

Even if true, that only shows that the people naming him were likely to be muslims, no?

And couldn't he have gotten the name to honour great uncle Abdul Mohamed? Perhaps. I don't know anything about this guy. Did his parents raise him as a muslim? I don't know. Did he even have parents? I don't know. Was he raised in a Christian convent? Unlikely, but not impossible.

In short, I agree that going by simply a name gives us nothing. Even if he is from a country where the majority is muslim... Wait, does he identify himself as a muslim? Or is he an atheist? Or an apostate? Or a convert? I don't know. Anyone?

That is the thesis statment. What we are trying to prove or disprove. You can't just repeat it and say it's evidence.

No, the thesis statement is that "this actually is common in the culture"; that "one guy, from the culture, says that it is so" is evidence for the thesis (not, in isolation, very strong evidence, but evidence).

No. The article does not say that.

Yes it does. I pointed out to you explicitly where it says the cause of the problem is a lack of workers from elsewhere.

Nor does it say that.

Yes it does. Read the last paragraph.

That is not child molestation. Though horrendous, it is not evidence of child molestation.

People who will treat children horribly in one way are likely to treat them horribly in another.

Why would I be?

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.
There's a phrase I haven't heard in a while.
How come right, in certian forums where it's okay to make sweeping generalisations, the people move from there and then expect that everyone will except this in their new forum?
Win.
Given that some countries do like child molesting, and some religions encourage it (whether offshoot Mormons or tribal Muslims), his argument might have some truth to it.
So? You keep arguing that there are some cultures and religions that are ok with child molestation. I still don't see why.
I proved that the suspect believed he was continuing his home traditions here in the US, which happened to be illegal.
No you didn't. He claimed it, that doesn't make it true.
You're saying the UNHCR wasn't fucking little children wholesale in Sierra Leone?
Because the UNHCR is a big part of Sierra Leonean culture. Huge! Been there influencing shit for millennia.

Besides, Mr. Kudsy has been in America for 27 years. Was the UNHCR even there in the early 80s?

Woops. I put no, but what I ment is who gives a fuck bout culture. What should I have voted?

Why would I be?

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

That's got to be a meme :D

No, the thesis statement is that "this actually is common in the culture"; that "one guy, from the culture, says that it is so" is evidence for the thesis (not, in isolation, very strong evidence, but evidence).

No. The one guy (the suspect) said "this actually is common in the culture", and we now debating the truth of that statement.

Yes it does. I pointed out to you explicitly where it says the cause of the problem is a lack of workers from elsewhere.

How many countries were involved in the study? I ask this because the study involved more than one country and never explicitly says where the 'locals' are from, nor does it explicitly say where the abuses took place. So, I wonder how you can claim that "it was rampant within one program staffed principally by Sierra Leoneans", as you did.

Yes it does. Read the last paragraph.

Are you talking about this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1842512.stm
with this last paragraph:

One senior aid worker said ending the sexual exploitation of under age refugees would be an uphill task because gender discrimination was deeply rooted in many cultures, not only here in West Africa but all over the world.

Saying that gender discrimination is rooted in many cultures all over the world is not the same as saying that child molestation is rooted in Sierra Leone culture.

People who will treat children horribly in one way are likely to treat them horribly in another.

Once you do some research into FGM in Sierra Leone, you'll realise why the people who are doing FGM are also highly unlikely (less than 20%) to be the same people who are molesting children in refugee camps.

No, the thesis statement is that "this actually is common in the culture"; that "one guy, from the culture, says that it is so" is evidence for the thesis (not, in isolation, very strong evidence, but evidence).

Its not very strong evidence, even stirred in with...what was your other stuff? Child marriage? An aid worker program article that doesn't really say that Sierra Leone culture as a whole encourages child molestation?

You really, really want to believe the child molestor's explanation that its his culture, don't you?

No. The one guy (the suspect) said "this actually is common in the culture", and we now debating the truth of that statement.
Yes. One piece of EVIDENCE is that "the guy said...", given that this guy is actually from there: when a witness gives a statement about matters within his personal knowledge, that is called "giving evidence"; the jury may accept the evidence, or may decide the witness is a lying sack of shit; since in this case the witness appears to be a sack of shit, and may well be a lying one, this evidence is weak (and: he is not under oath, just talking to Fox News, which may not even be reproducing his statements faithfully), but it's evidence.
How many countries were involved in the study? I ask this because the study involved more than one country and never explicitly says where the 'locals' are from, nor does it explicitly say where the abuses took place. So, I wonder how you can claim that "it was rampant within one program staffed principally by Sierra Leoneans", as you did.
There were also a lot of refugees at the time in Liberia, and to a lesser extent in Guinea, all part of this same "Slave Coast" area. Sierra Leone was the epicenter of the disaster, however. Although the neighboring countries are bad, too, Sierra Leone is really terrible. One of Sudova's links mentioned some "Human Development Index" ratings, trying to get beyond mere GDP-per-capita to incorporate other measures of human misery/happiness: by one scale, Sierra Leone was absolute worst in the world, by another 7th worst. It is hard to be objective about these things, but what I am seeing is a place where you can do ANYTHING to a child, literally ANYTHING.
One senior aid worker said ending the sexual exploitation of under age refugees would be an uphill task because gender discrimination was deeply rooted in many cultures, not only here in West Africa but all over the world.

Saying that gender discrimination is rooted in many cultures all over the world is not the same as saying that child molestation is rooted in Sierra Leone culture.
Sierra Leone and the neighboring countries are explicitly included.
Once you do some research into FGM in Sierra Leone, you'll realise why the people who are doing FGM are also highly unlikely (less than 20%) to be the same people who are molesting children in refugee camps.
??? Girls too young to have been sewn up yet are prized. I think you are not quite grasping what is going on here.
You really, really want to believe the child molestor's explanation that its his culture, don't you?
The strongest statement I have been willing to commit to is "it's not implausible". Admittedly we would need more information specifically about sexual abuses to know how frequent they are there, and how much molestors feel free to do these things openly without any expectation of being held to account; but I regret having been made to look into what the common practices there have traditionally been like, because what I have seen has been stomach-turning.

That is not what I said was the bigoted part. You can now start to play dense if you like -- you must be running out of dodging techniques by now -- but I am not going to fall into the trap of just repeating my points over and over for you. I told you specifically and at length what my issue with your comments has been.
The bigoted part is pointing out that things which would be rare or totally unheard-of elsewhere are commonplace and taken for granted there, not with saying they are horrible?

Ah, so you're slandering both with one stone.
"Slander" requires that it not be true. Many African cultures have really cruel aspects. So do many Islamic cultures.

And this is dodge number what now? I demanded proof of your assertion that no one but a Muslim would ever have the name this man has. Your only response was to turn that around and demand that I show proof that anyone but a Muslim would have such a name, but like I said way back then, I asked you first. I'm still waiting.
The name is from a language not spoken in that country except for religious purposes, within a particular religion, whose meaning is a pledge of utter devotion to the founding prophet of that religion, in a country where you have no freedom to just abandon the religion of your family, and where members of different cultural subgroups (religious groups, especially) have a long-standing tradition of grotesquely violent hatreds against each other.
You are apparently taking for granted that we are talking about a country like America, where your grandparents maybe were Christians and your parents atheist, but you are Buddhist and decide to give your kid a Jewish name and a Chinese middle name because they sound cute. This is light-years from the reality.
Two bigoted and unsupported remarks in a row, repeated while totally ignoring my statement that other areas do the same things, other things, even arguably worse things, but I don't see you blaming other cultures the way you are painting both Africa and Islam as a massive confluence of child abusers/molesters.
I read a story about boys getting their cocks and balls hacked off with a machete, their groins cauterized with boiling oil, nails stuck into their urethras to keep them open, and then being buried in sand up to their chests for a day, to "heal"; the minority of them who survived were then sold-- this happened in the 20th century, but it has been one of the charming customs of this country for centuries.
[Mods: if you feel that story should not be on this board, by all means delete it; I only wish you could delete it from my brain.]

The bigoted part is pointing out that things which would be rare or totally unheard-of elsewhere are commonplace and taken for granted there, not with saying they are horrible?
No. I have already explained in detail and at length precisely what the bigoted part is. Several times. It's not that.

"Slander" requires that it not be true. Many African cultures have really cruel aspects. So do many Islamic cultures.
If it's true, prove it. EDIT: Or if you can't prove it, or don't feel like proving it, you should consider giving up on claiming that it is a fact, because you're not going to be believed.

The name is from a language not spoken in that country except for religious purposes, within a particular religion, whose meaning is a pledge of utter devotion to the founding prophet of that religion, in a country where you have no freedom to just abandon the religion of your family, and where members of different cultural subgroups (religious groups, especially) have a long-standing tradition of grotesquely violent hatreds against each other.
You are apparently taking for granted that we are talking about a country like America, where your grandparents maybe were Christians and your parents atheist, but you are Buddhist and decide to give your kid a Jewish name and a Chinese middle name because they sound cute. This is light-years from the reality.
And you are apparently taking for granted that we're going to take your word for what goes on in Sierra Leone. That's also lightyears from reality.

<snip just in case it gets edited later> this happened in the 20th century, but it has been one of the charming customs of this country for centuries.
Source or it's just smoke. I mean a source for the part about it's been a "charming custom of this country for centuries." Anything at all that shows that the horrific atrocities of the recent wars in Sierra Leone actually had nothing to do with those wars but were, in fact, established and accepted traditions of the nation's culture which the people of that nation practice as a matter of course, in order for it to be in any way true that Mr. Kudsy fondled that autistic boy because in his culture that's the thing to do with kids.

Basic Human rights should always trump Culture.

The assertion (which I do not find strongly supported, but do not see as absurd, either) is that the cultures in a wide swath of the Muslim world from Arabia to West Africa include a FAR HIGHER level of both child molestation itself and of open toleration of child molestation. This is the same region where genital mutilation is a widespread practice, so I hardly think it unreasonable to posit that other forms of gross abuse are common there; the furthest I can go in agreeing with you is to say that the evidence presented is slight given the breadth of the accusation.

Do you happen to know the percentage of children sexually abused in the various countries you're talking about? I ask because the estimated rate of child sexual abuse in the United States is between 1 in 4 and 1 in 2. Seems an awful lot like a culture that encourages and tolerates molestation, doesn't it?

I don't see where my argument about the name needed to be "improved". You are taking for granted the Western world's casual way of giving names willy-nilly to their kids, whatever sounds nice, and think it is reasonable to assume it works that way everywhere. No, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that a non-Muslim in a polarized country like Sierra Leone names a child "slave of Muhammad".

If you'd told us you were an expert in naming traditions around the world sooner, there wouldn't have been so much confusion.

People who will treat children horribly in one way are likely to treat them horribly in another.

Sexual abuse in Jewish cultures must be rampant, with all the circumcisions performed.

Source or it's just smoke. I mean a source for the part about it's been a "charming custom of this country for centuries." Anything at all that shows that the horrific atrocities of the recent wars in Sierra Leone actually had nothing to do with those wars but were, in fact, established and accepted traditions of the nation's culture which the people of that nation practice as a matter of course, in order for it to be in any way true that Mr. Kudsy fondled that autistic boy because in his culture that's the thing to do with kids.

What? No, atrocities never happen during wars. It's the barbaric culture that does it. Otherwise you'd expect to almost always see a spike in crime during times of war, and obviously the evidence doesn't support that.

Yes. One piece of EVIDENCE is that "the guy said...", given that this guy is actually from there: when a witness gives a statement about matters within his personal knowledge, that is called "giving evidence"; the jury may accept the evidence, or may decide the witness is a lying sack of shit; since in this case the witness appears to be a sack of shit, and may well be a lying one, this evidence is weak (and: he is not under oath, just talking to Fox News, which may not even be reproducing his statements faithfully), but it's evidence.

Unless he's the defendant. Like this guy.

There were also a lot of refugees at the time in Liberia, and to a lesser extent in Guinea, all part of this same "Slave Coast" area. Sierra Leone was the epicenter of the disaster, however. Although the neighboring countries are bad, too, Sierra Leone is really terrible. One of Sudova's links mentioned some "Human Development Index" ratings, trying to get beyond mere GDP-per-capita to incorporate other measures of human misery/happiness: by one scale, Sierra Leone was absolute worst in the world, by another 7th worst. It is hard to be objective about these things, but what I am seeing is a place where you can do ANYTHING to a child, literally ANYTHING.

So, you have no evidence that the sexual abusers were predominantly from Sierra Leone. Just so we're clear.

Sierra Leone and the neighboring countries are explicitly included.

What part of "countries all over the world" is so difficult to understand? Most of the human population is explicitly included. Nor does the paragraph mention child molestation at all. It's talking about gender discrimination.

??? Girls too young to have been sewn up yet are prized. I think you are not quite grasping what is going on here.

I do grasp what is going on here.

You are trying to argue that child molestation is culturally condoned in Sierra Leone. You are doing so by claiming that the women who perform FGM as part of an entrance rite into secret societies are also the sexual predators (86% of which are male) who abused a foreign aid system during a time of crisis.

I honestly don't see how you're going to tie this all together.

The strongest statement I have been willing to commit to is "it's not implausible". Admittedly we would need more information specifically about sexual abuses to know how frequent they are there, and how much molestors feel free to do these things openly without any expectation of being held to account; but I regret having been made to look into what the common practices there have traditionally been like, because what I have seen has been stomach-turning.

You made the claim. You provide the evidence.

If you're finding it too much, I would assume that's because you haven't been exposed to it very much. Which is apparent from the lack of evidence for your argument.

I don't think I would respect a culture that say, sacrificed human beings for whatever reasons.

I don't think I would respect a culture that say, sacrificed human beings for whatever reasons.

Do you mean a culture that would sacrifice them ritually?

Or would, say, capital punishment count too?

Do you mean a culture that would sacrifice them ritually?

Or would, say, capital punishment count too?

Both, I'm not a big fan of the Death Penalty.

That's got to be a meme :D

Gravlen, I believe we have a moral imperative.

No. I have already explained in detail and at length precisely what the bigoted part is. Several times. It's not that.
If you are failing to convey your point, the problem may be at the transmitting end rather than the receiving end.
As best I can decipher your meaning, you are saying that since the victims compain about it, the society as a whole must not approve. Well of course the victims don't like it: in cultures where police routinely supplement their income by shaking down people for bribes, the people who are shaken down are generally angry about it, but that's not a good argument for denying the existence of a "culture of corruption" (if the society never, or hardly ever, prosecutes such police); nor is it a good argument to say "well, there are crooked cops everywhere" (if in the other countries you are talking about we do see crooked cops prosecuted).
It would be more substantive if locals who were not victims complained about it: but, to take a European example, some Christians did disagree with anti-Semitic violence in '30s and '40s Germany (sometimes opposing it at great risk to themselves), yet it would be nonsense to deny that such violence was a major feature of "German culture" in that period. In the refugee-camp story, however, it appears that the abusers did what they did quite openly, with no concealment and no expectation that they would be held to account.
If it's true, prove it.
You have been provided with links which you could read to verify such basic facts about Sierra Leone as the languages spoken there, or the history of intergroup wars before and after the British occupation. I am not sure which claimed facts in my paragraph you are disputing and demanding that I prove, since most of the things I said really ought to be considered common knowledge. Are you disputing that non-Arabic-speaking Muslims use the Arabic language for religious purposes? I thought everybody knew that. Are you disputing that Muhammad was Islam's founding prophet? I hope not. Are you disputing that Muslims regard it as a grave offense for someone raised Muslim to abandon the religion? We had a whole thread about actual and threatened executions for "apostasy" a while back, one case from Nigeria as I recall, though admittedly none specifically from Sierra Leone. My claim that the "abd-" root is better translated "slave" rather than "servant" is not common knowledge (I didn't know that until you made me look it up; I have seen it translated both ways), but that is a rather minor issue here.
Anything at all that shows that the horrific atrocities of the recent wars in Sierra Leone...
The story I posted was not about the 1990's wars, but about the eunuch trade, as of the 1970's (I don't know if it's still going on now): there were also gross stories in that source about imperial China and early modern Italy, but that was for "domestic" consumption; the "export" trade in eunuchs has been centered on West Africa, particularly the "Slave Coast", since medieval times. I deleted the link from the browser history; I would rather not have found it in the first place.
What? No, atrocities never happen during wars. It's the barbaric culture that does it.
Again, did I say anything to give the impression I was talking about wartime atrocities? And: the war IS part of the local "culture"; you are speaking as if the war was an outside imposition, rather than a purely indigenous outburst. Of course, all human cultures have some degree of propensity toward war; Sierra Leone's style of warfare just happens to be notably atrocious.
Unless he's the defendant. Like this guy.

Uhhh, how can I put this? People who get arrested ARE allowed to give evidence in their defense. If you believe that anything said by someone who is arrested must be automatically a lie, then please try very hard to get out of jury duty next time you are called.
What part of "countries all over the world" is so difficult to understand?

What part of "here in West Africa" was difficult to understand? Of course there are other parts of the world where girls are also treated like dirt; the point was, that this is one of them.
Nor does the paragraph mention child molestation at all. It's talking about gender discrimination.

It is giving the reason why they think child molestation would be difficult to stop in this kind of case.
You are doing so by claiming that the women who perform FGM as part of an entrance rite into secret societies are also the sexual predators (86% of which are male) who abused a foreign aid system during a time of crisis.

The males particularly value the opportunity to take the virginity of females who are still intact. I explained this as tactfully as I could, but seem to have gone straight over your head. You are also talking as if the woman were autonomous actors here: unmutilated women are treated as whores who deserve to be raped; that's why they go through with it.
You made the claim. You provide the evidence.
No, I didn't make the claim. Hotwife did, and provided evidence which I evaluated as "weak". I did object however to flatly wrong statements, such as the claim that there was "no reason" to think Abdul Muhammad is a Muslim, which I thought (and still think) was a real well-DUHuhUHHH, and your claim that the UN workers in the refugee camps were not from around there. I was not initially impressed with the likelihood of Hotwife's claims, but looked into the subject, and while I found nothing specifically about boy-diddling, everything I did find points to a culture where children are viciously exploited all the time in all kinds of ways.
Do you know the word "kwashiorkor", for example? It is now the medical term for protein-malnutrition leading to the "swollen body" starvation; but its etymology is from the native term, along that coast of Africa, meaning abandoned child: if a family has too many children, they will choose one to just stop feeding, and watch die slowly; now, in dire poverty this may even be a rational choice (rather than spreading the malnourishment over all the children), but again, the whole concept that a child is a person with rights just seems to be alien here.
If you'd told us you were an expert in naming traditions around the world sooner, there wouldn't have been so much confusion.

I hardly thought any special expertise was required.
Do you think it would be fair to say "There is no reason to think that Chung Zhi-shang is Chinese"?
Do you think it would be fair to say "There is no reason to think the parents who named their kid Adolf Hitler are racists?"
Do you think it would be fair to say "There is no reason to think Krishna Yogananda is a Hindu?"

If you are failing to convey your point, the problem may be at the transmitting end rather than the receiving end.
Other people don't seem to be having the trouble understanding me that you do.

As best I can decipher your meaning, you are saying that since the victims compain about it, the society as a whole must not approve. <snip>
Wrong again. And no, I'm not going to explain it again. Others in the thread have gotten what I've been saying. I'm sure if you apply a little thought to it, you can too.

You have been provided with links which you could read to verify such basic facts about Sierra Leone as the languages spoken there, or the history of intergroup wars before and after the British occupation.
I have read the links. They do not say what you and the OP and his other supporters would like them to say. I and others have already explained this. The rest of your post is nonsensical, irrelevant, and/or redundant with your earlier posts, as well as being equally unsupported by any facts. Remember, the sources linked to so far do not actually support your claims.

I cant believe this thread is still going...At 82.22% you'd think there'd be a Clear Majority...

Its time we shut down this Minority Culture challenging our beliefs :p

My respect for someone else's culture ends where their culture interferes with someone else's right to property, life, or personal opinion.

What is so bloody wonderful about property?

Other people don't seem to be having the trouble understanding me that you do.
Perhaps you could point out to me which other posters are conveying your viewpoint, then.
I refuse to consider it "bigotry" to characterize the practices of other cultures as cruel, when they are horrifically so. At one point, for example, you asked me to "prove" that many African cultures have cruel aspects, although you had already acknowledged that you know (without my having to tell you) about such things as genital mutilation and human trafficking. I am genuinely puzzled as to whether you think those don't count as "cruel", or whether you think such socially pervasive phenomena don't count as "condoned" by the culture.
Others in the thread have gotten what I've been saying. I'm sure if you apply a little thought to it, you can too.
Well, you haven't given much effort to follow what I am saying, either; for example:
I have read the links. They do not say what you and the OP and his other supporters would like them to say.
I was citing the links for two points only, both of which you ought to have had no trouble verifying from the information in the links. Linguistically: there is a long list of languages natively spoken in Sierra Leone, including standard English and a modified pidgin English called "Krio", but not including Arabic. Historically: there was an escalating depopulation from slave-trading and its associated warfare, followed by a British occupation from the abolition/emancipation period until decolonization, after which there has been a series of astoundingly brutal internal wars.
I was NOT claiming that the links substantiated Hotwife's position that Abdul Muhammad Kudsy's self-serving statement and the refugee-camp story represent a general pattern of socially tolerated child molestation. I have called his evidence "weak", but the claim itself "not implausible" since the general answer to the question "How are children treated in Sierra Leone?" turns out to be, "Inhumanly", as far as my own research into it can determine. I have refrained from linking here to graphically obscene material, but have reluctantly summarized (uselessly, it appears, in the face of your pointed refusal to believe that such things have gone on, in "peacetime" as well as wartime, for as long as we have any record). If you have any research of your own painting a cheerier picture, I would be grateful to have my nausea relieved.
I cannot find any report of so much as a single case of prosecution for child molestation in Sierra Leone, although there are theoretical laws on the books: evidently, the "government" is so minimally functional that social sanctions for most crimes are handled through village and clan elders, not through the judiciary. And so it is difficult to get a handle on the extent to which the real authorities in this society act against child abuse, or to the contrary actively encourage or participate in it; I am sure that varies, depending on which subgroup of the population we are talking about. Here (http://gvnet.com/childprostitution/SierraLeone.htm), if you want some links, is a page of gloomy stories. The intensity of the 1990's war of course led to worse situations than what the culture in its "normal" functioning would produce; on the other hand, there are active efforts to modernize the country and in particular to improve the condition of children there.

since the general answer to the question "How are children treated in Sierra Leone?" turns out to be, "Inhumanly", as far as my own research into it can determine.

Two points:

1) The general answer to the question "How are children treated in the United States?" could also be "inhumanly". As I reported in an earlier post, it's estimated that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 2 children in the U.S. are sexually abused. That's a pretty shitty record. You can point out that Sierra Leone has a much higher rate of FGM if you want, but that doesn't make the fact that between 25% and 50% of U.S. children are molested any cheerier.

2) You have failed to show that the various cultural groups in Sierra Leone condone child molestation. Saying that it happens is not the same as saying that it is okay or condoned--otherwise most cultures in the world could be said to "condone" rape, theft, murder and sexual abuse. If you are saying that this man's cultural could plausibly have encouraged him to molest a child, then any U.S. American could make the same claim with equal plausibility. Obviously, considering how rampant sexual abuse is and how poorly it is reported and prosecuted, the U.S. encourages the abuse of children.

1) The general answer to the question "How are children treated in the United States?" could also be "inhumanly". As I reported in an earlier post, it's estimated that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 2 children in the U.S. are sexually abused.
Estimated by whom? I find that statistic both vague (the error bar is ridiculously wide) and highly implausible (not at all consistent with experience); it is badly in need of a source. And yes, I do find the vast difference in the rate at which children (of both genders) have their whole genitalia hacked off to be, shall we say, somewhat significant.

But as you acknowledge in point 2), the question is not about what HAPPENS, but about what is CONDONED by the societies. Child abuse is prosecuted in the US, often: despite your accusation to the contrary, what I've seen in years of watching the courts is that it is far more common for a report of abuse to be prosecuted even though it seems clearly false than for a report to be ignored.

The extreme rarity of prosecutions in Sierra Leone is not totally to the point, since few crimes of any kind are handled through the formal judiciary, but rather through local traditional structures; so the question is the extent to which the "elders" act against, fail to act, act to promote, or actively participate in, such behavior. The real answer to that question is of course "We don't know"; my guess is, "It depends on where you are".
2) You have failed to show that the various cultural groups in Sierra Leone condone child molestation.
As I have repeatedly acknowledged. The general picture, however, is that the traditional culture gives children no rights whatsoever: they can be deliberately starved to death, painfully neutered, sold off, "married" before puberty. Is it also OK to fondle them? I don't know for sure, but I can't see why those who have no objection to doing any of those grosser violations would have a particular problem with this one.

A Saudi bloody Arabian judge just said that it's fine fro ten year old girls to be married off.....the old shit!
And the Saudi Men get the best of Western Education. It's like the ante-bellum slaveowners hanging on to their power to exploit others.
I have no respect for subjugation and none for any sort of Fundamentalism.

Just replying to the OP...

He's just full of shit, there is no culture that considers taking pictures of young naked boys acceptable.

Anyway, yes. There are limits, of course.

So, in our multicultural world, what limit do you place on "respecting the culture of others"? Is there a limit? Or not? If there's a limit, where do you place the line?

Yes, there are limits.

I remember sometime ago a friend posted a story from Washington of a Mother killing her Daughter because the Daughter had been raped by her brother(s). The Mother said it was something along the lines of a honor killing... to preserve the male(s)' honor. I believe she was still charged with murder.

Then there are fuzzy lines: Again this is from a blurred memory. A story from when I was in highschool of CPS taking children away from parents because a woman overheard and saw the young Daughter of the Parents pronounce 'penis' and pointed to the Father's crotch. Said children meanwhile were in the foster care of people of a different religion and at some point the older son attemped suicide. Else-while, apparently the Parents and older son were from a remote region in the Middle East. Where it was village/tribal custom to explain body parts to offspring. The family, I think, sold their business and went bankrupt trying to fight the state.

I always remember that qoute "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." And the Romans did and allowed a lot of things; much of which we are still drawing lines on.

Perhaps you could point out to me which other posters are conveying your viewpoint, then.
The above request is evidence that you are just BSing at this point. Nearly the whole last half of this thread as consisted of nothing but mulitple posters telling you that you are wrong on the exact same points for the exact same reason. You even exchanged posts with one of them while I was away.

I refuse to consider it "bigotry" to characterize the practices of other cultures as cruel, when they are horrifically so. At one point, for example, you asked me to "prove" that many African cultures have cruel aspects, although you had already acknowledged that you know (without my having to tell you) about such things as genital mutilation and human trafficking. I am genuinely puzzled as to whether you think those don't count as "cruel", or whether you think such socially pervasive phenomena don't count as "condoned" by the culture.
Once again, the general, relative level of cruelty in African cultures as opposed to non-African ones (and it has been disputed in this thread whether US or European cultures are really all that nicer than Africans ones), is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- the part of your argument that is bigoted.

The bigoted part is where you take the FACT (still alleged at this point, but we'll accept it for the sake of conversation) of ONE PERSON committing a sex crime against a minor (a person who has lived in the US for over 20 years, btw), and who claims without any support of his own that it's all a misunderstanding due to cultural differences, and you decide, on the basis of THAT, to brand the entire nation of Sierra Leone, and/or the entire religion of Islam, and/or the entire continent of Africa as culturally condoning and encouraging child molestation.

THAT is a bigoted argument. If you cannot see that, to be honest, that's really not surprising anymore.

Well, you haven't given much effort to follow what I am saying, either; for example:

I was citing the links for two points only, both of which you ought to have had no trouble verifying from the information in the links. Linguistically: there is a long list of languages natively spoken in Sierra Leone, including standard English and a modified pidgin English called "Krio", but not including Arabic. Historically: there was an escalating depopulation from slave-trading and its associated warfare, followed by a British occupation from the abolition/emancipation period until decolonization, after which there has been a series of astoundingly brutal internal wars.
I have read ALL the links. I have read ALL your points. NONE of the links supports ANY of your points. Nor do any of the links make any of your irrelevant points magically relevant.

I was NOT claiming that the links substantiated Hotwife's position that Abdul Muhammad Kudsy's self-serving statement and the refugee-camp story represent a general pattern of socially tolerated child molestation.
They don't support your position, either.

I have called his evidence "weak", but the claim itself "not implausible"
Because of the bigoted position outlined above.

since the general answer to the question "How are children treated in Sierra Leone?" turns out to be, "Inhumanly", as far as my own research into it can determine. I have refrained from linking here to graphically obscene material, but have reluctantly summarized (uselessly, it appears, in the face of your pointed refusal to believe that such things have gone on, in "peacetime" as well as wartime, for as long as we have any record). If you have any research of your own painting a cheerier picture, I would be grateful to have my nausea relieved.
Your own research is clearly lacking, because if you had really done serious research you would have been able to find information suitable for a general audience from such groups as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and several international NGOs and rights organizations focussing on women's rights, children's rights, and human trafficking. Guess how I know that.

I cannot find any report <snip more of the same bad argumentation>
I'm going to type this for the last time: None of what you describe -- war atrocities, corrupt government, a collapsed, perhaps never functional legal system -- is evidence of a CULTURAL TRADITION OF CHILD ABUSE/MOLESTATION.

Also, pick a target, please. Who do you feel like denigrating -- Sierra Leone, Islam, or the entire continent of Africa? Because your constant switching from one to another is not helping you. You switch from Sierra Leone to Africa in general any time your villain label won't stick to Sierra Leone, specifically. You switch back to Sierra Leone any time you can't get away with blanket condemnations against all of Africa. And you switch over to Islam any time you fail to make your label stick to either the nation or the continent. And when it won't stick to Islam, you're back trying to slap it onto Sierra Leone again.

Estimated by whom? I find that statistic both vague (the error bar is ridiculously wide) and highly implausible (not at all consistent with experience); it is badly in need of a source. And yes, I do find the vast difference in the rate at which children (of both genders) have their whole genitalia hacked off to be, shall we say, somewhat significant.

Estimated by a number of agencies and studies, including Health and Human Serives. You can read about the methodological problems involved in estimating child sexual abuse here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_37/ai_72272302/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1). There are a number of factors that make it difficult to collect accurate data, including reluctance on the part of victims to report or admit to abuse, and subjective definitions of what qualifies as abuse. The general consensus seems to be that about 1 in 4 women are sexually abused as children; however, other research has put the estimate above 50%. Although the exact percentage is indefinite, all of those numbers constitute a serious problem.

I am not very interested in how your personal experience conflicts with data. I trust professional research over your anecdotal evidence. I have known many people, male and female, who were sexually abused as children; your personal experience is no more valid or indicative of society as a whole than mine.

I do find it entertaining, however, that you find it "highly implausible" that 25-50% of children could be sexually abused in some way in the U.S., yet "not implausible" that the abuser who is the subject of our discussion could have been encouraged by his culture (though you still haven't identified what "culture" he belongs to, other than "probably muslim in Africa") to abuse a child.

But as you acknowledge in point 2), the question is not about what HAPPENS, but about what is CONDONED by the societies. Child abuse is prosecuted in the US, often: despite your accusation to the contrary, what I've seen in years of watching the courts is that it is far more common for a report of abuse to be prosecuted even though it seems clearly false than for a report to be ignored.

More personal bias coming through? How can you tell that an accusation of child sexual abuse is "clearly false" from your "years of watch the courts", whatever that means. Any psychologist will tell you that child molestation is far UNDER-reported. Even IF a reported case if prosecuted, and even IF that prosecution results in conviction, far more cases of abuse are unreported than are reported. I know, off the top of my head, five people who were molested as children. Only two ever reported the abuse; neither of those two took any legal action. See, I can use anecdotal evidence, too.

Nearly the whole last half of this thread as consisted of nothing but mulitple posters telling you that you are wrong on the exact same points for the exact same reason.

Uh, we have had Gift-of-God claiming incorrectly that the abusers in the refugee camps were not locals, and then as a fallback position claiming that the UN officials were not saying that the culture of the locals was not at the root of the problem; and Ryadn making claims that the experience of children in the US is typically just as horrendous as the experience of children in Sierra Leone. Otherwise, we have had posters expressing no opinion on whether the culture might have taught this man it was OK to diddle boys, but agreeing that such a cultural norm would have to give way.
The bigoted part is where you take the FACT (still alleged at this point, but we'll accept it for the sake of conversation) of ONE PERSON committing a sex crime against a minor (a person who has lived in the US for over 20 years, btw), and who claims without any support of his own that it's all a misunderstanding due to cultural differences, and you decide, on the basis of THAT, to brand the entire nation of Sierra Leone

I do NOT accept the argument that this one statement, or Hotwife's supplementation of it by one story of an outbreak of child abuse, constitutes good evidence for the claim of a general cultural acceptance.
Repeat: I do NOT. Repeat again: I do NOT. I have told you this over and over and over and over and over again, but apparently I have to keep saying it over and over and over and over again because you are profoundly unwilling to read what I am saying.
That evidence is "weak". We cannot conclude what the OP wishes us to conclude from that evidence. We would need much more. Nothing that I have found, either, is sufficient to draw a conclusion either way on the subject. We do not know the answer. Capeesh?
We do not know that the claim is wrong, either. The most I have been willing to say is that it is not ridiculously improbable that it is true: based on the fact that the traditional culture in this region does not respect children's rights to freedom or even life.
I have read ALL the links. I have read ALL your points. NONE of the links supports ANY of your points.

I do not believe you. If you are unable to find either the linguistics or the history of Sierra Leone, then you are not reading anything.
Your own research is clearly lacking, because if you had really done serious research you would have been able to find information suitable for a general audience from such groups as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and several international NGOs and rights organizations focussing on women's rights, children's rights, and human trafficking.

I PROVIDED YOU with a page of links to such stories, in my very last post; obviously you didn't bother to look. I acknowledge that there have been recent efforts to modernize the country, particularly in respect to children's rights, where the traditional culture has been abysmal.
Children were (and often still are) routinely sold into slavery, commonly sexual slavery; pre-pubertal girls were "married" for a dowry, which is essentially the same as sale into sexual slavery; many of the tribes require all women to give up their genitals, and regard unmutilated women as suitable for raping; from at least the 16th century until as recently as the '70s (i.e., when Kudsy would have grown up), neutering boys for sale to Arabia (daughters of rich Saudi families need trustworthy drivers) was a significant sector of the economy. This was all prior to the most intense outburst of the war, when it became routine also to kidnap children, drug them, and train them as killers and mutilators. Picking out a child to watch die is also not a recent development.
Also, pick a target, please. Who do you feel like denigrating -- Sierra Leone, Islam, or the entire continent of Africa?

The stretch of Africa from Guinea into parts of Nigeria (linguistically, where the residue of the Niger-Congo language family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger-Congo_languages) after removing the outlier Fulah or "Atlantic", Mandingo, Adamawa, and Bantu branches are the tongues spoken; in the Wiki article go down to the map near the end before the tables and footnotes, and eyeball the areas marked "yellow" and "green" leaving out the "purple" and "brown") is a fairly cohesive cultural zone, marred by more serious abuses than in other regions, although many parts of Africa have cruelties embedded in the culture. Islam has worsened the situation, particularly in the "Slave Coast" subregion (Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia); I am no fan of Islam in general, and consider its interaction with west African culture as toxic, particularly regarding attitudes towards sexuality.
You switch from Sierra Leone to Africa in general

No, I haven't. I have discussed examples from elsewhere in the "Slave Coast" and the linguistic/cultural zone of which it is a part.
Estimated by a number of agencies and studies, including Health and Human Serives. You can read about the methodological problems involved in estimating child sexual abuse here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_37/ai_72272302/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1).
This secondary source does not give linkage to primary research. In only two places do I see actual data: a figure of "44,700 per year", which multiplied by 70 (for the typical number of years in an American lifespan) would work out that 1% of Americans experienced child abuse in their lifetime; and one study which finds that out of 121 suspected child abuse cases, 98 turned out to be false: this would indicate that the number of reports is about five times as high as the number of actual cases.
There are a number of factors that make it difficult to collect accurate data, including reluctance on the part of victims to report or admit to abuse, and subjective definitions of what qualifies as abuse.
In the other direction, there is the problem of children being pressured to make sexual accusations, or finding that making such accusations gets them attention when reporting the problem they are really having does not.
Any psychologist will tell you that child molestation is far UNDER-reported.
Some psychologists will tell you that. Some (http://skepdic.com/falsememory.html) will tell you the opposite.
I know, off the top of my head, five people who were molested as children. Only two ever reported the abuse; neither of those two took any legal action. See, I can use anecdotal evidence, too.
So, unless the total number of people you know is between 10 and 20, even your anecdotal evidence does not support the "1 in 4 to 1 in 2" claim.

This secondary source does not give linkage to primary research. In only two places do I see actual data: a figure of "44,700 per year", which multiplied by 70 (for the typical number of years in an American lifespan) would work out that 1% of Americans experienced child abuse in their lifetime; and one study which finds that out of 121 suspected child abuse cases, 98 turned out to be false: this would indicate that the number of reports is about five times as high as the number of actual cases.

No, it only cites about four pages of primary sources. As to your "in only two places do I see actual data" claim--did you, perhaps, look at the pages with tables of data showing the different research methods used, the number of questions asked, and the percent of respondents who attested to being sexually assaulted in childhood?

I also like that apparently all of the data in the article is irrelevant to you, but oh, one of the many studies said abuse is over-reported, so that one must be reputable.

Some psychologists will tell you that. Some (http://skepdic.com/falsememory.html) will tell you the opposite.

You know what? Despite your gross assumptions, I don't believe in "recovered memory" therapy--and neither do the MAJORITY of therapists. Yet the MAJORITY will still tell you that molestation is under-reported. Obviously you've already decided that child sexual abuse is not a problem in the U.S., though, and that most of it is kids making it up, so I don't know why small details like professional opinion and data would change your mind.

Hey, maybe the autistic kid made up the abuse!

So, unless the total number of people you know is between 10 and 20, even your anecdotal evidence does not support the "1 in 4 to 1 in 2" claim.

You're so resistant to anything approaching rational thought that's not even entertaining. I said what I said first to show that anecdotal evidence does NOT prove your case--or mine. That's why I provided actual data.

That said, because I KNOW five people in my life were molested does not mean those are the only people I know who were. It means five people in my life are close enough to me and trust me enough to share something VERY personal and traumatic. The majority of people I know--coworkers, acquaintances, even most friends and family--probably wouldn't disclose that information. We've probably never had a conversation about it. So now, I don't know only "10 or 20" people, but I also can't name too many people I know SO well that we've had that discussion.

Of course, all of those people could have just made it up for the attention... even though most didn't report it and none of the molesters faced charges. But again, why let details like logic get in the way of constructing your picture?

Uh, we have had Gift-of-God claiming incorrectly that the abusers in the refugee camps were not locals, and then as a fallback position claiming that the UN officials were not saying that the culture of the locals was not at the root of the problem; and Ryadn making claims that the experience of children in the US is typically just as horrendous as the experience of children in Sierra Leone. Otherwise, we have had posters expressing no opinion on whether the culture might have taught this man it was OK to diddle boys, but agreeing that such a cultural norm would have to give way.
You are obviously posting in the wrong thread then, because by my count there are five or six other posters all expressing the exact same views that I am and, at present count, only one expressing yours, because the other two or three have wandered off. Maybe they'll come back.

But then I'm not really surprised that you are so uninformd about the content of this thread. You apparently cherrypick and misrepresent its content just like you do with the data that is presented -- not seeing what's in some parts and seeing in other parts things that are not there.

Also, I have been waiting for it to dawn on you that you are engaging in yet another fallacy. Having failed to get rid of me by claiming you can't follow my arguments, you are now trying to get rid of me by claiming that no one else is also presenting my argument. However, that will fail because:

1) It's a logical fallacy. A lone arguer is not a wrong arguer.

2) It's false as a point of fact. I am NOT the lone arguer here.

3) You should be glad it's a logical fallacy because, as a point of fact, you ARE the lone arguer here. A fallacy that backfires on the one presenting it is a sad thing indeed.

I do NOT accept the argument that this one statement, or Hotwife's supplementation of it by one story of an outbreak of child abuse, constitutes good evidence for the claim of a general cultural acceptance.
Repeat: I do NOT. Repeat again: I do NOT. I have told you this over and over and over and over and over again, but apparently I have to keep saying it over and over and over and over again because you are profoundly unwilling to read what I am saying.
Now you're cherrypicking your own statements and leaving out the other part that you've been saying over and over again, namely, that you do not find it "implausible." Your word. See? I have been reading your remarks.

However, the premise's flat-out falseness has been made abundantly clear numerous times and from numerous angles in this thread. A statement that is false cannot help but also be implausible, since implausible is a boulevard from here to false-ville.

The fact that you can look at a statement that has been so thoroughly debunked and still claim that you think it's "not implausible" suggests only two things: (A) You do accept and believe the OP's claims but can't support them any better than he can and don't want to be called a bigot any more than he does so you lie about your own position while still defending his, OR (B) you're just bullshitting us for shits and giggles, and waiting for us all to get the joke. Own up. Which is it?

By the way, you can't even claim that the OP is "not implausible" even in just its narrative structure -- you know, the way fiction can have a plausible plot -- because since the OP is entirely based on logical fallacies, it fails to hold together even as a fiction. Thus, it is IMPLAUSIBLE.

And another thing: Your own argument has plenty of bigotry in it, all on its own, as is becoming clearer by the day in your exchanges with Ryadn (I read all the posts in the thread). You insist, without any real evidence at all that Sierra Leone is a culture of child molestation and abuse, on no basis except the word of one molester, who didn't offer any supporting evidence either, and reports about things unrelated to question. Yet when you are shown real numbers about the rates of child abuse/molestation in the US -- in support of the argument that tying child molestation to culture is a bad argument -- you deny those facts and claim that this doesn't really happen in the US.

Inventing unsupported accusations in order to demonize one culture while ignoring factual evidence in order to keep another culture's reputation pure = a bigoted argument. Especially when we consider the other differences between the two cultures (religion, race, economic class, etc) but most especially the fact that YOU are part of one (US/western) but not the other. Classic knee-jerk "us versus them", "my group is better than theirs" thinking.

That evidence is "weak". We cannot conclude what the OP wishes us to conclude from that evidence. We would need much more. Nothing that I have found, either, is sufficient to draw a conclusion either way on the subject. We do not know the answer. Capeesh?
Yeah, I capice perfectly well. You're supporting a bigoted argument that has been thoroughly debunked -- as I explained above.

"Weak" =/= "inconclusive" when it comes to evidence. "Weak" actually = "not supportive of the premise." The fact that neither the OP nor you have been able to provide even one shred of non-weak evidence is, itself, strong evidence that you have no case. Ergo, we CAN draw the conclusion that you're both blowing smoke out your asses on this subject.

We do not know that the claim is wrong, either.
It doesn't have to be wrong when it's already bullshit, just like when it's already false, it doesn't also have to be implausible. One is automatically included in the other. By its very nature, there is no way for bullshit to be a fact. Bullshit is so removed from truth or factuality that there is no need for questions of "wrong" or "correct" to even enter the picture. The claim is bullshit, and that has been proven amply in this thread.

The most I have been willing to say is that it is not ridiculously improbable that it is true: based on the fact that the traditional culture in this region does not respect children's rights to freedom or even life.
And that is your contribution to the bullshit pile, as has also been amply explained to you in this thread, by more than one person.

I do not believe you. If you are unable to find either the linguistics or the history of Sierra Leone, then you are not reading anything.
I didn't not find it. I rejected it and refused to humor you on that idiotic point by even addressing it because not only is it idiotic, it is also completely irrelevant. IR. RE. LE. VANT. Remember what I said about your "evidence" not backing you up and not rendering your irrelevant points magically relevant? That's what I was talking about.

Your entire attempted digression into Sierra Leonian linguistics is another patty of bullshit. Linguistics does not support your ridiculous claims, nor is it relevant either to the name argument you've been losing or the main thread topic. It is nothing but a lure into a threadjack, and I ain't fallin' for it.

I PROVIDED YOU with a page of links to such stories, in my very last post; obviously you didn't bother to look. <snip the rest of your nonsense as redundant and non-illuminating>
Wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of this? None of it supports your accusation against the people of Sierra Leone that their culture condones child abuse/molestation. Fail. Again.

No, it only cites about four pages of primary sources. As to your "in only two places do I see actual data" claim--did you, perhaps, look at the pages with tables of data showing the different research methods used, the number of questions asked, and the percent of respondents who attested to being sexually assaulted in childhood?

I also like that apparently all of the data in the article is irrelevant to you, but oh, one of the many studies said abuse is over-reported, so that one must be reputable.



You know what? Despite your gross assumptions, I don't believe in "recovered memory" therapy--and neither do the MAJORITY of therapists. Yet the MAJORITY will still tell you that molestation is under-reported. Obviously you've already decided that child sexual abuse is not a problem in the U.S., though, and that most of it is kids making it up, so I don't know why small details like professional opinion and data would change your mind.

Hey, maybe the autistic kid made up the abuse!
Oh, no, that accusation is true because it was made against a Muslim from Sierra Leone, and we all know what those people are like. It's part of their culture, so obviously he did it. He's a perfect example of his culture. Clearly.

You're so resistant to anything approaching rational thought that's not even entertaining. I said what I said first to show that anecdotal evidence does NOT prove your case--or mine. That's why I provided actual data.

That said, because I KNOW five people in my life were molested does not mean those are the only people I know who were. It means five people in my life are close enough to me and trust me enough to share something VERY personal and traumatic. The majority of people I know--coworkers, acquaintances, even most friends and family--probably wouldn't disclose that information. We've probably never had a conversation about it. So now, I don't know only "10 or 20" people, but I also can't name too many people I know SO well that we've had that discussion.

Of course, all of those people could have just made it up for the attention... even though most didn't report it and none of the molesters faced charges. But again, why let details like logic get in the way of constructing your picture?
If they are Americans and if they claim they were molested by other Americans, then they are making it up for attention because that's not part of our culture and we don't do that because we're not that kind of people, not like those Sierra Leonian Muslim types. Clearly.

No, it only cites about four pages of primary sources.

All I see are author-names and dates: no links, not even journal titles, nothing at all that would help in finding the primary sources.
As to your "in only two places do I see actual data" claim--did you, perhaps, look at the pages with tables of data showing the different research methods used, the number of questions asked, and the percent of respondents who attested to being sexually assaulted in childhood?

No, I didn't, since you did not provide any such thing.
I also like that apparently all of the data in the article is irrelevant to you, but oh, one of the many studies said abuse is over-reported, so that one must be reputable.

That, and the "44,700" number, supporting a rate of "0.25% to 0.50%" (if the typical abuse victim is abused from two to four times, rather than just once) as opposed to the "25% to 50%" claimed, were the ONLY two pieces of "data", as opposed to conclusory statements, which were present.
Obviously you've already decided that child sexual abuse is not a problem in the U.S.

OF COURSE it's a problem. I would not say that fifty thousand cases a year is a small matter: it is however a far smaller matter than the five million cases a year which your claim would require.
most of it is kids making it up

I am sensitive on this subject because a friend of mine died in prison as a result of charges which the judge and prosecutor knew perfectly well were false.
That said, because I KNOW five people in my life were molested does not mean those are the only people I know who were. It means five people in my life are close enough to me and trust me enough to share something VERY personal and traumatic.

So, is the total number of people who are close enough to you to share personal details only between 10 and 20? If so, I am very sorry for you.
You are obviously posting in the wrong thread then, because by my count there are five or six other posters all expressing the exact same views that I am

Name them. You appear to be the only person under the misapprehension that I considered the OP's evidence sufficient to support the conclusion claimed. Possibly some others think that, secretly, without saying so, just like you were doing, but nobody else is expressing that confusion.
you are now trying to get rid of me by claiming that no one else is also presenting my argument.

YOU were the one telling me that I should look at other people's posts to figure out what you were getting at.
Now you're cherrypicking your own statements and leaving out the other part that you've been saying over and over again, namely, that you do not find it "implausible."

I did not leave that out at all, although I rephrased it in the hope that stating it a different way might help you to get it.
However, the premise's flat-out falseness has been made abundantly clear numerous times and from numerous angles in this thread.

No, not even once. Evidence that the premise is FALSE would consist of statements from Sierra Leoneans that their culture disapproves of fondling boys, or instances of Sierra Leonean authority figures acting against such conduct, etc. The evidence presented that the culture actually condones it is feeble, yes (one statement from someone with evident motives to lie; one story about an outbreak of abuse in an obviously atypical setting), but there is no evidence in the other direction.
A statement that is false cannot help but also be implausible, since implausible is a boulevard from here to false-ville.

This is incorrect. Many things turn out, after detailed investigation, to be in fact false, although there was nothing implausible about the claim. Scientists are now saying that methane emissions on Mars "might" be a sign of life under the surface: there is nothing implausible about the claim that the methane is produced by life on Mars, although it could easily turn out to be false.
The fact that you can look at a statement that has been so thoroughly debunked and still claim that you think it's "not implausible" suggests only two things

You have not considered the third possibility: that I mean exactly what I say. WE DO NOT KNOW whether Sierra Leonean culture does or does not condone fondling little boys. We have only feeble evidence in favor of the claim, but we have a context of pervasive abuse of children, of more severe types, within the culture, and no evidence that this particular type of abuse is disfavored.
Especially when we consider the other differences between the two cultures (religion, race, economic class, etc) but most especially the fact that YOU are part of one (US/western) but not the other. Classic knee-jerk "us versus them", "my group is better than theirs" thinking.

So your view is that we should keep our noses out of the affairs of other cultures, and do nothing to stop whatever horrendous things they have been in the habit of doing?
"Weak" =/= "inconclusive" when it comes to evidence. "Weak" actually = "not supportive of the premise."

No, "weak" = "inconclusive"; something "not supportive of the conclusion" would not be evidence at all: for example, if it turned out that Kudsy hadn't even said anything about his culture. The fact that Kudsy is speaking about a culture which he has personal knowledge of means that his statement is evidence; the fact that he could easily be lying means that it is not very persuasive evidence.

[Tmut]...based on the fact that the traditional culture in this region does not respect children's rights to freedom or even life.
And that is your contribution to the bullshit pile, as has also been amply explained to you in this thread, by more than one person.

Huh? Children in that culture commonly are allowed to die, mutilated (sexually or otherwise), and/or enslaved (sexually or otherwise). Good-intentioned people from outside have been making valiant efforts in the past decade to change this culture, but the culture as it was, thirty years ago when Kudsy would have been brought up, and for the centuries prior, has just been very sick. You know without my having to tell you about some of the horrors: are you trying to excuse them? We do not have anything telling us directly how the people there view boy-fondling, but I don't see any reason why we should expect that this particular abuse is disapproved by the culture when practically any other form of abuse is allowed.
I didn't not find it.

Then you were lying when you said you didn't.
Your entire attempted digression into Sierra Leonian linguistics is another patty of bullshit. Linguistics does not support your ridiculous claims

You were claiming that since it was an Arabic name, it could be a non-Muslim Arabic-speaker. I point out that there aren't any such.

Quote:
I PROVIDED YOU with a page of links to such stories, in my very last post; obviously you didn't bother to look.
Wrong again.
Liar. I did so provide them.

None of it supports your accusation against the people of Sierra Leone that their culture condones child abuse/molestation.
I didn't say it supported that claim. I mentioned that I had provided such links to refute your lying assertion that I had not even looked at such material. What the material does show is that outsiders are trying to change a traditional culture which did not respect children's rights in the slightest.

This was on the local news this morning, a man who was sexually abusing an autistic boy in his care. The man has been working with autistic children for some time now, so they're contacting previous people to find out if there are any other allegations of a similar nature.

This would be a fairly generic pedophile story, if not for the fact that the suspect blames "cultural differences" for his behavior - that is, he thought it was OK because in the culture where he comes from, apparently it's OK to fondle little boys and take naked pictures of them.

So, in our multicultural world, what limit do you place on "respecting the culture of others"? Is there a limit? Or not? If there's a limit, where do you place the line?

http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=8234733&version=5&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
That's incredibly ridiculous. What if someone were to claim that it was their "personal culture" to commit serial rape and murder? Why would something being an individual's personally made up culture different than something being a society's collectively made up culture? We shouldn't have to bend over backwards to "respect cultural differences"; we should evaluate ideas on their own merits, and if they're bullshit, they're bullshit, regardless of where they come from.

Name them.
No. This line of argument is a logical fallacy, and you are using it to try to lure me into committing another fallacy -- the appeal to popularity. You don't get to name the tune I dance to, T.

You appear to be the only person under the misapprehension that I considered the OP's evidence sufficient to support the conclusion claimed. Possibly some others think that, secretly, without saying so, just like you were doing, but nobody else is expressing that confusion.
Bullshit. You are misrepresenting what I said. Again.

YOU were the one telling me that I should look at other people's posts to figure out what you were getting at.
No, I didn't. I never said anything even remotely like that. What I said was that you were not getting what I was saying, but I have to be 100% honest -- I was being polite in suggesting that you were making a mistake. What I truly think is that you are being deliberately dishonest in your argument.

I did not leave that out at all, although I rephrased it in the hope that stating it a different way might help you to get it.
More bull. Until this very post, you have been using both phrases, in their entirety, to sum up the two parts of your opinion -- that the OP's evidence is "weak" AND that you think his argument is "not implausible" nevertheless. Now you're just trying to blur your earlier statements.

No, not even once. Evidence that the premise is FALSE would consist of statements from Sierra Leoneans that their culture disapproves of fondling boys, or instances of Sierra Leonean authority figures acting against such conduct, etc. The evidence presented that the culture actually condones it is feeble, yes (one statement from someone with evident motives to lie; one story about an outbreak of abuse in an obviously atypical setting), but there is no evidence in the other direction.
More bullshit, and more ignoring of points already made.

The evidence posted in support of the OP's argument has already been used to prove the premise false by those of us who have pointed out that the sources contain direct information that indicates that child abuse/molestation is NOT accepted by the people of Sierra Leone. Your claims that this is not true have also been debunked earlier in this thread.

In addition, YOU and the OP are the ones who have made positive assertions claiming to be facts. Therefore, the onus is on YOU, not us, to prove those assertions. You have failed to do so because all your sources have been shown either to say the opposite of what you claim or to have no relevance to the topic at all. Your failure is evidence in support of the assertion that the premise is false.

This is incorrect. Many things turn out, after detailed investigation, to be in fact false, although there was nothing implausible about the claim. Scientists are now saying that methane emissions on Mars "might" be a sign of life under the surface: there is nothing implausible about the claim that the methane is produced by life on Mars, although it could easily turn out to be false.
I explained how "implausible" falls under the rubric of "false." Just because it can also, at other times, fall under the rubric of "true," does not change the fact that it DOES fall under the rubric of "false," as I said (that's whey I characterized it as a road connecting us to "false-ville"), AND MORE IMPORTANT, that "implausible" is superseded by "false" in determining whether an argument should be given credence or not.

You can spend the rest of your life claiming that the OP's argument is "not implausible," but that only means that you would spend the rest of your life trying to make excuses in support of a lie.

You have not considered the third possibility: that I mean exactly what I say. WE DO NOT KNOW whether Sierra Leonean culture does or does not condone fondling little boys. We have only feeble evidence in favor of the claim, but we have a context of pervasive abuse of children, of more severe types, within the culture, and no evidence that this particular type of abuse is disfavored.
Actually, if you read my posts, you should be able to figure out that I most certainly did consider that possibility, and concluded that such a position would be bullshit. In other words, I believe that is exactly what you are saying, and I further believe that is an intellectually dishonest load of crap.

So your view is that we should keep our noses out of the affairs of other cultures, and do nothing to stop whatever horrendous things they have been in the habit of doing?
And now, ladies and gentlemen... THE STRAWMAN!! Tah-daaaah!

No, that is not my view.

How many other fallacious arguments have you got up your sleeve?

No, "weak" = "inconclusive"; something "not supportive of the conclusion" would not be evidence at all: for example, if it turned out that Kudsy hadn't even said anything about his culture. The fact that Kudsy is speaking about a culture which he has personal knowledge of means that his statement is evidence; the fact that he could easily be lying means that it is not very persuasive evidence.
You are as wrong about this as you are about everything else.

"Weak" evidence fails to support an argument because it is "weak", i.e. thin, of little content, outweighed by counter evidence, requiring logical leaps and twists to hold it together. Therefore, "weak" evidence is not supportive. Rather, it needs support itself.

Huh? Children in that culture commonly <snip>
Unsupported claims that are taken out of context from reports that are not relevant to the topic and are posted over and over again only for the purpose of trying to overwhelm an opponent with outrage -- yet another fallacy = the appeal to emotion -- qualify as propaganda. You will not win an argument with propaganda that you cannot win by logic.

Then you were lying when you said you didn't.
I never said I didn't.

You were claiming that since it was an Arabic name, it could be a non-Muslim Arabic-speaker. I point out that there aren't any such.
You pointed out that there are no Arabic-speakers who are non-Muslims?

No, seriously, stop and think a moment. Do you really want to assert that, or do you want to consider whether you have lost your own thread a little there? I'll let you rephrase that if you like. You get one chance.

Liar. I did so provide them.
Another error on your part. I did not say you did not provide them. You said I hadn't looked at them, and I said you were wrong. I did look at them.

I didn't say it supported that claim. I mentioned that I had provided such links to refute you lying assertion that I had not even looked at such material. What the material does so is that outsiders are trying to change a traditional culture which did not respect children's rights in the slightest.
And another missed point. Man, I hope you don't try to do anything like archery as a sport. I DID NOT SAY YOU HAD NOT LOOKED AT THE SOURCES. I SAID YOU CHERRYPICKED FROM THEM TO TRY TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THEY SUPPORT YOU.

Also, the end of your post is just more of the same unsupported bullshit. You have NOT shown that the cultural tradition of child abuse/molestation that you have been claiming actually exists, so any further claims you make regarding it are without foundation.

This line of argument is a logical fallacy...
Whoa. I wasn't even MAKING a "line of argument", I was expressing puzzlement at your claim that "five or six" other posters are also under the misapprehension that I considered the OP's evidence sufficient to prove the conclusion. I do not see a single other poster saying that, and so I asked you who it is that you are thinking is saying that.

Bullshit. You are misrepresenting what I said. Again.
Bullshit. YOU are misrepresenting what YOU said. In post #248,
you take the FACT (still alleged at this point, but we'll accept it for the sake of conversation) of ONE PERSON committing a sex crime against a minor (a person who has lived in the US for over 20 years, btw), and who claims without any support of his own that it's all a misunderstanding due to cultural differences, and you decide, on the basis of THAT, to brand the entire nation of Sierra Leone, and/or the entire religion of Islam, and/or the entire continent of Africa as culturally condoning and encouraging child molestation.
you plainly assert that 1) that I believe Sierra Leone condones child molestation (I am agnostic on whether that is true or not) and 2) that I believe the single statement in the OP is sufficient basis to prove that (I have repeatedly said that I do NOT consider it sufficient). And now you are saying falsely that you never said that, and saying falsely that you never claimed there were other posters saying the exact same thing.
What I said was that you were not getting what I was saying, but I have to be 100% honest -- I was being polite in suggesting that you were making a mistake. What I truly think is that you are being deliberately dishonest in your argument.
Projection much?
I really had no idea you thought I considered the OP good evidence for its conclusion. I had thought that since I had stated the opposite, repeatedly, that you understood what I was saying.
Until this very post, you have been using both phrases, in their entirety, to sum up the two parts of your opinion -- that the OP's evidence is "weak" AND that you think his argument is "not implausible" nevertheless. Now you're just trying to blur your earlier statements.
No, I was trying to CLARIFY, since you evidently have some very peculiar notion of what the word "implausible" means. It means that the probability is too low to be worth taking seriously. "Probability" is what we assign to a statement which is either "true" or "false" when we do not have enough information to know which it is, but do have some partial information: I just tossed a coin on the table, what is the probability it came up tails? You say "1 in 2" because you can't see the coin (*I* can, so to me, the probability is 100%; I have information you do not), but you do have the partial information that coins have two sides, both alike in their chances.

In this case, we have little information directly to the point. At the risk of infuriating you again to presuming to know how you're thinking, I assume that you intrinsically rate the probability very low based on the information "No people that I know (except maybe some perpetrators) think molestation is acceptable" plus the working presumption "People everywhere are pretty much alike". But it is dangerous to assume by default that people in other cultures share a general moral framework based on equal human dignity for all; hell, even in Western cultures you can find lots of subcultures that don't agree on that, and you don't have to go back far in history to find dominant cultures, not just fringe groups, that didn't buy the basic principle. The information that I am finding, not conclusive, but suggestive of a reasonable probability, are that children's rights are discounted in all kinds of extreme ways within that cultural area in general, and Sierra Leone in particular.
More bullshit, and more ignoring of points already made.

The evidence posted in support of the OP's argument has already been used to prove the premise false by those of us who have pointed out that the sources contain direct information that indicates that child abuse/molestation is NOT accepted by the people of Sierra Leone.
What are you talking about? The Kudsy story contains nothing whatsoever about any Sierra Leonean disagreeing with him. The refugee-camp story indicates that the VICTIMS didn't like it (naturally), and that OUTSIDERS (the UN officials) didn't approve, but there is no indication that anyone among the locals who was not personally a victim intervened on behalf of the victims or even found anything distasteful about what was going on.
In addition, YOU and the OP are the ones who have made positive assertions claiming to be facts. Therefore, the onus is on YOU, not us, to prove those assertions.
MY assertions have been: Arabic is not spoken natively by anyone in Sierra Leone, but the majority are Muslims who use the language religiously; Sierra Leone has a long history of devastating intergroup conflicts, before and after the British occupation; Sierra Leone and the neighboring countries were the epicenter of the slave trade from medieval to early modern times, and Sierra Leone has remained a center into recent times; genital mutilation, especially of females but also often of males, has been a common cultural practice; child marriage is routine; children are often selected for deliberate starvation to death; the judiciary is scarcely functional, and information about what the "elders" do or don't do about sexual abuse of children is hard to come by; outsiders have recently worked to change these things but have had to fight against the traditional culture, etc. All of these things are readily verifiable, and sources for most of them have been provided to you (I left out the link to the history of the eunuch trade because the text and pictures were graphic; I see that I never provided a link on the "kwashiorkor" custom: do you really want to see that?)
[Tmut]So your view is that we should keep our noses out of the affairs of other cultures, and do nothing to stop whatever horrendous things they have been in the habit of doing?
And now, ladies and gentlemen... THE STRAWMAN!! Tah-daaaah!
Well if that isn't what you are meaning, then what ARE you meaning??? (Please don't assume that you are so abundantly clear that I cannot possibly be in puzzlement about what you are trying to get at, because I am).
Sierra Leone currently is the locus of intensive efforts by outsiders to change the horrific practices of its past. If it is considered "bigoted" to point out that these practices ARE horrific, then, are you opposed to the efforts of those who seek change?
You pointed out that there are no Arabic-speakers who are non-Muslims?
In Sierra Leone, yes, that is absolutely correct, and easily verifiable.
I DID NOT SAY YOU HAD NOT LOOKED AT THE SOURCES.
Liar. Again from post #249:
Your own research is clearly lacking, because if you had really done serious research you would have been able to find information suitable for a general audience from such groups as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and several international NGOs and rights organizations focussing on women's rights, children's rights, and human trafficking
You said this immediately after a post in which I provided you precisely such information.
You have NOT shown that the cultural tradition of child abuse/molestation that you have been claiming actually exists, so any further claims you make regarding it are without foundation.
For the thousandth time, *I* did not make that claim, the OP did; my evaluation of the claim is that the OP's evidence is too weak to be sufficient, but that the other information available leaves open a reasonable probability that it might be true anyhow. I do not claim to know whether or not it is true.

Whoa. <snip>
Whoa, indeed. You are actually making me laugh at this point. I will address your post in detail tomorrow, but I just want to put you on notice right now that you have lapped yourself on your arguments on many points. All points on which you either (a) have posted the same words, addressed to me, more than three times in succession without adding anything or advancing the point, or (b) answer with nothing more than a "no, you" kind of response will be considered as points lost by you, as you have no way to actually answer the counterpoint.

Also, you will want to watch your misdirection habit. Repeatedly throughout this thread, and repeatedly in your last post, you have kept spinning and finetuning what you say you're talking about and changing which posts you claim to be referring to. No matter what I respond to, you claim you were talking about something else. That is a bad tactic that indicates that your argument is coming apart at the seams, and rather than defend it you are just trying to deflect and confuse your opponent. Even more damning is your habit of pretending that I am talking about things other than what I'm talking about -- as when you "respond" to my comment about your failure to prove that Sierra Leone actually has the cultural tradition you claim it does with some nonsense about Kudsy not saying that other Sierra Leonians disagree with his kiddie touching pastime. That bullshit is a hastily cobbled-together, after-the-fact attempt to deflect my comments away from the later posts they were actually and obviously referring to. Very poor form, T. It does not bode well for you.

Neither does your increasing use of the word "liar" in reference to me. That suggests you are losing your cool. Losing your cool would explain why you are failing to keep track of your own argument. Otherwise, it might suggest that you are resorting to personal attacks because you have no real argument left to make.

We'll get into this all in much more detail tomorrow. I just wanted to let you know what to expect. I will be toting up all your points and will dismiss all the ones that you clearly cannot defend or are not even trying to defend anymore. This exchange needs streamlining, so the dead wood will be cut out.

Uhhh, how can I put this? People who get arrested ARE allowed to give evidence in their defense. If you believe that anything said by someone who is arrested must be automatically a lie, then please try very hard to get out of jury duty next time you are called.

I'm not going to get into an argumwent about arguments. I'll just point out that this person has a vested interest in appearing as the victim rather than the criminal. If you want to take his word as a piece of evidence, go ahead. But don,t pretend you're not listening to someone with an obvious agenda.

What part of "here in West Africa" was difficult to understand? Of course there are other parts of the world where girls are also treated like dirt; the point was, that this is one of them.

Please post the quote from the article that mentions that the majority of the people charged with molestation were from Sierra Leone.

It is giving the reason why they think child molestation would be difficult to stop in this kind of case.

...and that is not evidence that child molestation is culturally condoned in Sierra Leone.

The males particularly value the opportunity to take the virginity of females who are still intact. I explained this as tactfully as I could, but seem to have gone straight over your head.

Stop making stuff up.

You are also talking as if the woman were autonomous actors here: unmutilated women are treated as whores who deserve to be raped; that's why they go through with it.

And this is proof of your ignorance about FGM in Sierra Leone. You keep making the mistake in thinking that it's men who are doing the FGM to women, when it is actually women who perpetrate it on each other. (http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10108.htm)

Do some basic research before you claims that are so easily disproved.

No, I didn't make the claim....the whole concept that a child is a person with rights just seems to be alien here.

If you don't have any evidence, perhaps you should stop defending the claim.

All points on which you either (a) have posted the same words, addressed to me, more than three times in succession without adding anything or advancing the point, or (b) answer with nothing more than a "no, you" kind of response will be considered as points won by you
Fixed. I keep repeating my points because you keep failing to argue against them (saying Nuh-UHHHH!, even when accompanied by a lot of emotional ranting, does not constitute an argument).
you have kept spinning and finetuning what you say you're talking about
I have been saying the same things from the very beginning. I attempt to find new ways to phrase the points, in case you were failing to comprehend due to some poor choice of words on my part. However, it appears that you are simply determined to assert the opposite of whatever I say. If I told you the climate in Sierra Leone is warm, you would get indignant about a stereotyping of Africa, and demand proof; then when I post a link about the weather there, you would deny that my link had anything to do with my point; when I point out that yes it does, you would say you had ignored it because it wasn't about child molestation; when I tell you it was silly to call my link irrelevant when the point was about climate, you would deny ever having said such a thing.
you "respond" to my comment about your failure to prove that Sierra Leone actually has the cultural tradition you claim it does with some nonsense about Kudsy not saying that other Sierra Leonians disagree with his kiddie touching pastime.
As you know perfectly well, I have never "claimed" that Sierra Leone has a cultural tradition of condoning child molestation. You, however, claimed absurdly that the OP contained evidence of an opposite cultural tradition: of course, there is nothing in there about Sierra Leoneans disapproving of child molestation; we haven't seen anything indicating such a disapproval.
Neither does your increasing use of the word "liar" in reference to me. That suggests you are losing your cool.
Deliberately making statements which you know to be false is called "lying". When for example you said I had never researched what international organizations had to say about the subject, right after I had just pointed you to precisely such information, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were just not paying any attention; you have since made it clear that you knew perfectly well.
And yes, I am quite past the point of feeling "cool" about you.

Losing your cool would explain why you are failing to keep track of your own argument.
My argument has never changed.
We'll get into this all in much more detail tomorrow.
Why bother?
I'm not going to get into an argumwent about arguments. I'll just point out that this person has a vested interest in appearing as the victim rather than the criminal.
That's why the evidence is "weak".
If you want to take his word as a piece of evidence, go ahead.
It IS a piece of evidence. Not a good piece of evidence, but it is what it is.
Please post the quote from the article that mentions that the majority of the people charged with molestation were from Sierra Leone.
I have posted the quotes repeatedly and don't feel like thumbing back to where the article is. The UN says the source of the problem is the lack of international staff, and the cultural baggage that west Africa (like some other parts of the world) has.
Stop making stuff up.
I'm not.
And this is proof of your ignorance about FGM in Sierra Leone. You keep making the mistake in thinking that it's men who are doing the FGM to women, when it is actually women who perpetrate it on each other. (http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10108.htm)
I already told you that I know that. I also told you that the women are not acting freely here. The males have specialized insults for intact women, and target them for rape. What, you think the women just decided this on their own? Do you and Mur think it would be fun to hack each other? I can't believe you're trying to defend this.
If you don't have any evidence, perhaps you should stop defending the claim.
I don't know if it's true or not, and you don't know either. If you find it hard to believe, then don't believe it. I don't find it hard to believe, when much fouler things than a little fondling are done to children over there. I don't pretend to be able to prove anything either way.

Tmutarakhan:

You know what? I'm done with you. I've just read your last post addressing me and GoG, and re-read your earlier post to me, and it's all the same BS that you've been posting for pages and pages. You continue the exact same deflection and misdirection that I complained of earlier. You continue moving your goalposts and denying that you're doing it. You continue piling one classic fallacy on top of another as if you made a bet with someone that you could get through the whole catalogue of fallacies in one thread. You continue repeating the same unsupported assertions over and over and then denying that you actually believe the argument you've been pushing for days -- as if that should let you off the hook for having made a bad argument (as in fallacious).

The bottom line is this: You failed.

You failed to prove that Sierra Leone has a cultural tradition of child abuse/molestation.

You failed to prove that it is not possible for anyone from Sierra Leone who is not a Muslim to nevertheless have a traditionally Muslim name. (Your last attempt to argue that it is not possible for anyone in Sierra Leone who is not Muslim to be able to speak Arabic hammered down the coffin lid on that one.)

You failed to persuade anyone that the OP's argument is "not implausible."

For the last two days, you have done nothing but repeat your failed points under a heavy coating of insults and haranguing against your opponents. The lack of variation in your posts for the past two days indicates that you have nowhere else to go.

At this point, I rest my case, and refer all readers to the thread history to let them judge for themselves whether you are full of it on this topic or not. I say you are, and I stand by that. Done and done.