Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by James R, Feb 25, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Now, go tell this to James, and get that sick debate closed. We should not be debating this issue, it's accepted that we don't allow people in civilised society to fuck children.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. theobserver is a simple guy... Registered Senior Member

    Whatever happens in nature is part of this nature; even if it doesn't make any sense to humans. Humans idea of being civilized is more about creating an alternate reality and then hallucinating themselves into believing all those are true. Its more like taking laws of nature into our own hands. Look into the animal world. They all hump their young ones. When we raised the age of consent and kept a whole series of generation of people from having sex from the natural age when they have to be enjoying sex, probably none of these so called civilized humans thought about such consequences. Nature has its way of balancing itself and all these are part of it. If we try to bring in humans narrow minded selfish agenda and declare things as good or bad, that wouldn't serve any purpose. Its a part of evolution and a consequence for humans ignorance. We have to face it.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. ancientregime Banned Banned

    I am requesting a two day extension to post the third argument.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I agree to the 2-day extension.
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Phlog, that is a personal insult and personal insults are a violation of the rules of this website. If you can't make your point convincingly without resorting to such tactics, then perhaps your point is not as obvious and secure as you would like us to believe. And if you don't immediately desist from personally insulting other members you'll end up on the ban list. I don't like pedophilia any more than you do but we all agree to follow the rules when we log on here. So far the only participant in this discussion who's breaking any rules is YOU. Everyone else is, astoundingly, behaving like good scientists.
    Enmos, this is a place of science and how anyone "feels" about something is not germane to any discussion. Feelings are not worth shit in the laboratory. I have the same thing to say to you that I said to Phlog: If this is the best you can do, then please sit down.

    I feel very, very sick, angry, and disgusted that my 30-year-old neighbor on one side is a Christian and the one on the other side is a Muslim. These are two pathologies that have done far more damage to human civilization than pedophilia, starting specifically with the obliteration of three of those civilizations. Yet the laws of my country require me to tolerate them. Apparently our natural ability or inability to feel good about something our neighbors do simply doesn't count. So you're going to have to come up with something better than "It makes my skin crawl" if you want to be taken seriously.
    It is also "accepted" that we don't allow gay people in a civilized society to live normal married lives with children. It is "accepted" that violence is a reasonable way to solve a dispute, so long as the parties to the dispute are entire "civilized societies" rather than individuals. It is "accepted" that one religion's symbols, slogans and rituals can shape the discourse and calendar of our country. Within my lifetime it was "accepted" that people of one skin color could not be allowed to mingle with those of another color, that women were not generally suited for jobs of great responsibility, that the best way to discipline children was by paddling, and that when they got a few years older they could be forced to serve in the military.

    To argue that your point is valid because it is "accepted" is a fallacy.

    So far A.R. is doing a fine job of practicing the scientific method. I'm not saying James isn't as well, but IMHO neither one has convincingly won the debate. Both offer many pages of well-researched material. But unfortunately all either have to rely on is psychology, one of the softest of the "soft sciences." When one is reduced to padding one's findings with statements from government employees--the same people who told us Saddam had WMD's and who still tell us that marijuana is worse for us than alcohol and tobacco--it's kind of embarrassing. I call this a standoff unless someone we all respect as neutral (yeah right) wants to go track down every paper that both of them have cited, read them all, check the credentials of all the authors, and report back to us.

    Suppose the first ship from Tau Ceti lands here and it turns out that the denizens of that part of the galaxy reproduce asexually. They're amused at the odd things we do with each other's bodies, but then they're outraged when they see an adult and a child doing one of those things and they see us punish the adult, since punishment is rare on Tau Ceti.

    How would we explain to them that pedophilia is wrong? Because it makes those of us who aren't even participants--and who most often don't even know when it's happening--feel bad? That pedophiles are icky? That they're "sick fucks"???

    Sure. Farewell to our chance to apply for membership in the Galactic Federation. I sure hope the Romulans aren't landing next week.
  9. Tnerb Banned Banned

    this plea of this pedo dude is absolutely absurd. it is surely
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    I was just trying to find out if he was a hypocrite.
  11. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Are you defending paedophilia? Sounds like it to me.

    You mods are blinded by ideals and are lost on the real implications of what this guy is saying.
  12. phlogistician Banned Banned

    That is total bullshit. Laws are based on the concensus of how people feel about crimes, and victims feelings are taken into account in sentening, and we are talking about the law here.

    Sorry, but you are taking far too an abstract view of this matter. Maybe if some paedophile had abused your kids you'd think differently. Maybe you'd stop defending the guy
  13. theobserver is a simple guy... Registered Senior Member

    Isn't this a case of emotions overriding logic?? I might be afraid of dogs. That doesn't mean dog is a dangerous animal.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Mar 1, 2009
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    And yet people do it all the time in sciforums. I think that in this one forum, atleast, we should have some ground rules as to what personal insults are off limits. I think 'sick fuck' could definitely qualify.

    Perhaps other words I had proscribed in my 9/11 discussion thread could be applied to all threads in the Formal Debates forum:
    The f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.). As people come up with more overly insulting terms, we could add to the list...
  15. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    i actually read the inital post which sparked all this and i would like to put a point of view forward in regard to Ancient Regime's aleged friend.

    Rape (as in use of force or cohersesion to obtain sexual favors) trumps statitory rape. There is no age taken into acount in this crime except for the ages of criminal culpability. There for acording to the courts your friend is a lier because if he had convinced the jury that she had cohersed him into having sex he would have been found not guilty. As to what would have happened to HER that would depend on the degree of culpability that an 11 year old has to comit a crime where ever it happened.

    So i put forward that your friend (or you yourself if you made up the story for your own argument here) is a lier and that this is a straight case of an older man cohersing a minor into having sex with him
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    No I'm not defending pedophilia. AR is. I am defending the right of people in a free society to hold debates. You, on the other hand, are arguing disingenously because you know bloody well that I'm not defending pedophilia. We have had a couple of PM exchanges on this topic.
    "Blinded by ideals." What an interesting accusation. Is there anyone here who would be consider it an insult? My country was founded on ideals.

    I doubt that any of us has lost the implication of what AR is saying. Nonetheless he has the right to say it. He has raised some extremely interesting points regarding attitudes about pedophilia in other cultures. He has also pointed out the weaknesses in the discipline of psychology. We Americans are very skeptical of psychology and are loth to make a judgment if the only arguments in its favor come from psychologists.

    Regardless of how anyone feels about pedophilia, this discussion is an excellent exercise in scientific debate. It shows how difficult it is to practice science when culture and the emotions upon which it is based are involved.
    Indeed, but we're talking specifically about how laws are made and the reality that lawmaking frequently violates the scientific method. Just take the War on Drugs as a stark example, then dig back to Jim Crow, and by the time you get to the breaches of the treaties with the Native Americans you feel like pissing on the entire legal canon of the United States. The topic under debate is (if you'll allow the Head Linguist to restate it in proper syntax so it finally makes sense): Is the criminalization of sex between adults and prepubescent children based upon pseudoscience?

    The irrationality of many of our most intrusive laws is a perfectly valid topic for discussion. What better way to open the discussion than with a law we all automatically assume is rational, because, as you say, "it's accepted."

    Religion is "accepted" and it's one hundred percent bullshit.
    One of the points that is never stressed enough in public debate is: We must never allow bereaved people to make policy. Bereaved people are irrational, narrowly focused and often downright selfish. If I had children and they had been abused I should automatically be excluded from this discussion. Bereaved people perform absolutely shitty risk analysis and risk management. The essence of a free society is that you have to tolerate occasional harm by miscreants in order to avoid draconian restrictions of the freedom of everyone else.

    Look at the stupid crap that's gone down after 9/11. They've made it virtually impossible to make a weekend getaway by plane, because 3,000 Americans were killed by terrorists in the last eight years. During those same eight years 120,000 Americans were killed by drunk drivers. They could be easily thwarted by building breathalyzer ignition interlocks into all cars, for a fraction of the cost of the War on Terrorism and without abridging anyone else's rights. Yet we don't do it and instead we have turned the world upside down and made our country a pariah, because we are bereaved and bereaved people are irrational.
    In some discussions insults are accepted by the participants and they are exchanged. There is no exchange of insults here; it is unidirectional. One member is too inarticulate to make his point (not to mention apparently unfamiliar with any data that might support his thesis) so in frustration he expresses himself in insults. Everyone else is comporting themselves admirably so he really stands out.

    He seems to believe that expressions of emotion are a debating tactic. He also seems to think that because governments are woefully guilty of passing laws based on emotions, that we should succumb to the same temptation and allow scientific hypotheses to be peer-reviewed by emotion instead of reason.
  17. phlogistician Banned Banned

    OK Fraggle, so that's a lot of words and ultimately, you are defending paedophilia by defending a paedophile. And yes, we've had PMs on this, and I just thought you were spouting rhetoric. You seem to not understand the actual topic, but merely see this as metadiscussion. If you are so proud to be supporting a paedophile, why not link some images of child abuse, so we all know what it is we are talking about, eh? No? Worried about the jail time you'll get for just looking? Is that idea driving the point home?

    Oh, btw on;

    I have corrected _you_, the moderator of the linguistics forum before so this statement of yours is pretty low. Swearing does not make me inarticulate. Far from it, it means my vocabulary has at least half a dozen more words in it than yours.

    People are defending ancient on the grounds of 'freedom of speech', but James just went and banned Gluon for posting pseudoscience, when we have a section for that topic. Moderation needs to be consistent, or you guys start to look incompetent. Also, your thrust that this is a science forum, and saying I was arguing from an emotional point of view fell flat, because we also have a section 'Ethics and Morality' and these subjects are clearly heavily influenced by the subjective.

    On the foundation of your country on ideals, well, Voltaire has the quote;

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    attributed to him, but you know what? In France, the home of this pioneer of free speech, I think you'll find that hate speech, and holocaust denial are not topics people are free to voice. Clearly, free speech has limits. Clearly, you not supporting my right to call Ancient a 'sick fuck' shows you have some limits. Even when it's rather more a description of an act, than a mere ad hom. For someone who professes to understand linguistics, that double entendre seems to have been wasted on you.
  18. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Here's the thing, is anyone seriously buying into the story that it was a 3rd party involved in Ancient's story? What are the odds of a paedophile happening to have a sympathetic paedophile friend?

    So, people, if a friend of yours admitted such an act, how would you react? Understand his point of view, or be revulsed? Fraggle, James, I really want you to reply here.
  19. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Maybe in the backwater where you live, but in the UK, gay couples may adopt children. Seems we are more forward thinking, something you might want to consider on this issue?

    That however is a separate issue, and each issue should be dealt with on it's individual merits, and also., as a moderator, you should know the value of staying on topic.
  20. phlogistician Banned Banned

    He hasn't specified what he deems an appropriate age of consent, nor what acts are appropriate, so you cannot rule out that he finds the scenario I mentioned acceptable.

    Let's get this straight, he is not discussing age of consent, that might be a topic that has some merit in it's discussion, as it varies, and social and environmental factors could be examined. No, he's talking about fucking children. Got that?
  21. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Present a logical defense of a paedophile and we'll see.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Fraggle is defending free speech, not a pedophile. It appears you don't understand the difference.

    No. Gluon was banned for repeatedly wasting the time of real scientists and moderators - as it says on the Ban List.

    We have a rule on sciforums that members ought not to attack and insult each other personally. Play the ball, not the man. sciforums, as you may have noticed, is not a nation, but an internet forum. This is but one niche on the internet. We are not obliged to provide a platform for every type of speech here. In fact, we have a policy of encouraging certain types of publication while discouraging others. There are, however, plenty of other sites on which the views we do not publish can be freely expressed. sciforums has no duty to be all things to all people, and we never set out to do that anyway.

    Since we bill ourselves as an "intelligent community", we think that intelligent people should be able to debate issues without resorting to crude personal insults and character assassination. Those who don't like that policy are free to practice their free speech elsewhere. We won't stop them.

    Your accusation that ancientregime is a pedophile is potentially libellous. I'd be careful if I were you.

    I'd like to think that no friend of mine would ever do such a thing. If they did, I would certainly be re-evaluating the friendship rather radically.
  23. phlogistician Banned Banned

    So you are calling Ancient a paedophile too. I'd be careful if I were a moderator making weak excuses.

    You are both defending a paedophile, ergo you are defending paedophilia.

    Your argument that discussing the matter may enlighten fence sitters hasn't been proven, quite the opposite, as Scott3x has demonstrated support for Ancient.

    Yet you give a voice to someone advocating paedohilia. Your choices seem skewed.

    Oh please. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paedophile

    It's a fair accusation based on the things he's said. His 'friend' that he talks about, you don't think that's a facsimile to avoid admitting having perpetrated those acts himself?

    That's a dodge James. How about a real answer?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page