Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
- Status
This is an inappropriate way to do that. Send a PM. Quit posting off-topic discussion. YOU ARE TROLLING.
Stryder fails to understand the difference between a debate and a personality. He is a moderator who is making off-topic posts that are more appropriate for a PM.
Please discontinuing this unprofessional behavior. If you have a point to make about the subject matter that is under debate, feel free to chime in. I have an open mind to consider any emprically based statements that sway the arugment either way. Please review the thread topic.
If you are so interested in discussion of my debate method and whatever implication you believe that might indicate, maybe I'll start that thread for you if you don't.
Well, you may want to ask James R. He claims they use experts. He has provided some links to studies, but I have not verified they are the ones used by Congression Findings. I wouldn't think they would vary much in method and nature.
Well excuse me. Would you like to give me a written exam? i will be out all day, why dont you prepare one for later.
I can tell you how such laws are passed in the UK.
In the UK they will usually have a committee investigating the proposed law, and they will ask people from various disciplines for their opinion.
Including in this case,probably, child care experts, psychologists etc.
The committee makes a report.
After the proposed law is drafted, it will be discussed in the House of Commons. Revisions are made, and it is voted for in Parliament.
If it is passed then it sent to another body, the House of Lords, for revision. Here again it can be rejected.
Finally, it will be discussed again in the House of Commons, and either passed with revisions or rejected.
What do they do in America?
Do they just ask scientists?
His reasoning cannot be treated as psychologically flawed since psychology cannot be treated as pure science. Most psychological claims can be argued and empirically proved wrong like AR just did. He cannot be trying to be an ass in this topic because he haven't resorted to personal attacks as I have observed. He has been debating a sensitive subject of social importance with non scientific claims. Obviously you are getting emotional and unable to reason or debate.
I guess its same everywhere. A bunch of political hustlers get tired of public outcry to criminalize certain acts and decide to bring in a new law. They discuss it with those halfwits they once appointed as scientific advisers and experts for their own political benefit and then cook up a new law and it usually gets approved by brainless emotional public and soon gets implemented as law. No policeman will ever care to think about the scientific validity behind such laws. Lawyers would refrain from arguing deeper on the subject to maintain his social status since the subject itself is treated as taboo by the society.
Last edited:
I disagree on both counts and believe that neither you nor anyone else has put up any evidence to the contrary.
Stryder said:
I think that it can be a -good- thing for people to be stirred up, -especially- if it leads them to question their beliefs. I also believe that you are too quick on the trigger when it comes to shutting down threads you disagree with. After many people contributed hundreds of posts to the threads I started over in pseudoscience concerning 9/11, you shut them all down, stating that in your opinion the arguments were simply repeating themselves. While it's true that -some- arguments were repeating themselves, I would argue that the reason for this was because the issues are complex, new people were constantly coming in and people can forget arguments at times if the issue is rather large, as 9/11 certainly is. The solution isn't to shut all discussion down, but rather to try to find out which arguments have already been played out and then simply link to the relevant material everytime someone brings a certain issue up. I essentially did this a fair amount, only I'd excerpt a fair amount of the relevant material because few people like going to links to find responses to issues they raise.
I'm adding two more names to the list of people who claim child sex causes harm, but haven't provided a case studying explaining in laymens terms the progression of child sex to mental disorder, like I did with verbal abuse in this case study. It's a fairly easy thing to do, I did it.
This naturaly gives the impression they only believe harm occurs, but really don't know that it actually does. This is not science. This would be faith.
visceral instinct
Stryder
Randwolf
leopold99
phlogistician
James R.
This naturaly gives the impression they only believe harm occurs, but really don't know that it actually does. This is not science. This would be faith.
visceral instinct
Stryder
Randwolf
leopold99
phlogistician
James R.
Oh no you don't, motherfucker. You can't just say something then declare it a truth unless categorically proven wrong. You prove your stance has some substance. YOU find us someone who was sexually abused - what's the language you always use - "had sex with an adult without any force or threats?", and suffered no mental harm.
Otherwise you're just saying something, with nothing behind it.
Can I declare, for example, that people have a molecule in their blood called 'Assholium' - then denounce people for not showing me the results of assays proving that this chemical doesn't exist??
No, of course not. I said it, it's my responsibility to back it up with evidence. Same with you and your stance on child sexual abuse.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
And your views apply to what ages ?
Reported (again). Come on vi, calm down.
visceral_instinct said:
Apparently you didn't listen to what he said; he's essentially said he already has.
visceral_instinct said:
That's fairly easy to do. A fairly famous example that I've mentioned time and again:
Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau. Society owes them an apology for what they've had to go through.
visceral_instinct said:
It seems just about everyone and their brother on your side of the debate insists that this is about 'child sexual abuse'. As far as I'm concerned, it's not. I believe that all of us here believe that unwanted and forced sexual interactions are -not- good. The issue here is whether consensual, wanted sexual interactions are bad just because someone is below a certain age. Those interactions don't have to include actual penis-vagina sex and I think that below a certain age in the case of females interacting with adult males, it may well be impossible to have a wanted interaction of this type anyway. There are also issues such as risks of stds, such as HPV, which can later on lead to cervical cancer, or AIDS. There's also the issue of pregnancy for minors above a certain age.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *
Vis, I have received a complaint from another member regarding the abusive language on this thread. Please cease immediately. Personal insults are a violation of the forum rules. We allow everyone a fair amount of leeway, but this is pushing it.
He only cited this post, but this applies to everyone who is participating in this discussion. I have not been following the thread so I don't know who else is doing it, and I don't care. This is obviously a topic that is guaranteed to raise tempers. So please, everyone, do your best to be civil.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The problem is that the Formal Debates subforum is not the bailiwick of any one moderator. We're all supposed to moderate it collectively. Obviously it's an idea with a few bugs still to be worked out.
Really? I have read nothing that shows children can have consensual sex with adults and not suffer lasting mental damage.
Vili was a teen, not a child. He was old enough to have a sexuality of his own.
They are not old enough to want it at all. They're not old enough for meaningful consent.
Does that mean you haven't read the formal debate between James R and ancientregime and the references listed out by AR explaining why its not written nor discussed anywhere?
I have. Ofcourse, you'd have to pick up a big tome like [URL="www.ipce.info/library_3/files/90_feierman.htm]Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions[/URL] to see it, which isn't exactly an easy book to find, although amazon.com does have a few used copies. I found a total of one copy in the network of libraries in the area I used to live in. I think it's safe to say that this type of research is -not- the type that gets funded by the government or is politically correct, so it's easy to see why literature of this sort is so scarce. On the other hand, there is a fair amount of money for studies that allegedly provide evidence that all adult/minor sexual interactions are negative. Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions makes it clear how these studies use faulty methods to reach their conclusions.
visceral_instinct said:
The definition of child varies, but legally, one is a child until one reaches the age of majority. By this definition, Vili was indeed a child and Mary Kay Letourneau was imprisoned because of this legal definition.
visceral_instinct said:
Tiassa has stated that he's heard of a 3 year old masturbating (so have I, perhaps we heard the same story, but I wouldn't be surprised if we heard different ones). I was definitely attracted to girls by the time I was 5 and found it very sexy to see a girl in underwear, or better yet, bikini style (the reason I know this is that there was a certain cousin of a neighbour who hiked her underwear bikini style back when I was about that age and I still remember it).
visceral_instinct said:
Maybe -you- didn't want to be sexual when you were young. I certainly did and I'm not alone. Yes, it's hard to come by books of this sort but despite society repressing any such notions, they do exist. I have also seen online accounts, but they keep on dissapearing; web sites that allow such testimonials can go the way of the dodo and I know that atleast some of the time, societal pressures that can even get into the legal arena can force them to close shop.
visceral_instinct said:
I disagree.
Thanks Fraggle. It's good to know that there are atleast a few insults that are off limits.
and again for about 10,000th time, you do not interpret the law in this area scott, the common will does.
i reported this post but apparently the mods seen nothing wrong with it.
for the record i never, at no time, stated an adult/minor relationship would harm the minor.
Whats so wrong about this post? Its the job of science to study, discuss and debate such topics.
- Status