Reminder: You are being ignored. ( didn't even that up there. I just wrote this.
Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
- Status
Reminder: You are being ignored. ( didn't even that up there. I just wrote this.
Yeah, that's one way to win an argument, just ignore all those with opposing views...
Bells
Staff member
Yeah, that's one way to win an argument, just ignore all those with opposing views...
Funny that, huh?
-----------------------------------------------------
Just a quick reminder.ancientregime said:
I am a moderator of this forum. Therefore, you cannot "ignore" me. You can refuse to answer the questions I ask you, but you cannot actually ignore me if I ask you to behave in accordance to the rules of this forum if ever the need arises. Doing so will result in my having to moderate your posts.
Yeah, that's one way to win an argument, just ignore all those with opposing views...
Do you have a scenario that doesn't concern a personal attack of me wrapped up in rhetoric language or not?
I'm willing to debate, but I will not tolerate personal attacks.
I am confused, Ancient. Of all the posts in this thread, how would you construe:
as a personal attack?
Was it my use of "frikken"? Rhetoric or not, why don't you just go on record by answering "Is there any child too young to consent?" Or is it that you really don't have an answer to this question?
question:
how old does a person need to be before they can be deemed competent enough to consent to sex?
The pronoun "you" represents the identity ancientregime. The act you associate me with is a criminal behavior. The fact you put it rhetorically may make you seem that a personal attack may be tucked in as long as your statements are rhetorically construed, but it's nothing more than wrapped up name calling, "ancientregime is a ... action" I'm much more clever than you think. I find this very inappropriate. This is an argument. Getting personal is out of line and unprofessional.
I addressed Informed Consent in my final argument.
and where is that?
post the link to your answer.
This discussion is being held with the assumption that you have read those arguments. Please take the time to inform yourself, and I will then consent to further discussion with you.
what is the intended use of informed consent?
you state:
"When I argue that there is no violence or threat in a situation of a child and adult engaging in sex, the general argument seems to be the Informed Consent argument. Using Informed Consent in this situation is a misapplication of it's intended use.[/QUOTE]
i want to know what you mean by "informed consent" and how it misapplies.
Last edited:
Looking at the arguments its quite obvious that most people who argue still fail to see the subject as a subject alone with all its related dynamics associated to it and keep bringing in their emotional ideas and arguments into the debate.
People often fail to have a scientific perspective towards the idea of what is Normal and often confuse their own measurement and idea of normality with that of the subject being argued. Observing the same phenomena in a scientific forum questions my belief on the purpose of education.
There are few aspects which need to be considered at all times when trying to debate on any subject.
-What are your intentions on contributing to a thread? Is it because you felt uncomfortable reading what you read? or because you felt the arguments are not satisfying enough?
-If i resort to personal attacks on the author than the subject being discussed, does it mean I am being emotionally unstable and helplessly being obtuse, defensive or offensive to protect my own view points without being rational?
-If I find it hard to agree with the arguments, Why do I feel and think they way I feel and think about the arguments? Am i constrained in my set of thoughts and logic because of social conditioning?
I agree with you all that most of your perspective on this subject is true from various social perspectives. But that doesn't make it science or the ultimate truth. Its only a bunch of variable social perspectives from its members. It only carries a subjective value and nothing close to be called scientific. And that's exactly what AR was debating about - the laws which are based on such subjective values than on science.
When it comes to setting up a benchmark as to what is normal and what is not normal, I suggest you look into the animal world for recording your observations. Only that can give you an appropriate idea as to what is normal and what is not. Does animals hump their newborn babies? If they don't, then the laws must have to be same for humans as well. That can probably define what is perversion and what is not. What is natural and what is not. Any defense against conducting such observations before being judgmental would go straight into the emotionally unstable humans category. And such people should refrain themselves from being in scientific debates and take up religion as an alternative.
People often fail to have a scientific perspective towards the idea of what is Normal and often confuse their own measurement and idea of normality with that of the subject being argued. Observing the same phenomena in a scientific forum questions my belief on the purpose of education.
There are few aspects which need to be considered at all times when trying to debate on any subject.
-What are your intentions on contributing to a thread? Is it because you felt uncomfortable reading what you read? or because you felt the arguments are not satisfying enough?
-If i resort to personal attacks on the author than the subject being discussed, does it mean I am being emotionally unstable and helplessly being obtuse, defensive or offensive to protect my own view points without being rational?
-If I find it hard to agree with the arguments, Why do I feel and think they way I feel and think about the arguments? Am i constrained in my set of thoughts and logic because of social conditioning?
I agree with you all that most of your perspective on this subject is true from various social perspectives. But that doesn't make it science or the ultimate truth. Its only a bunch of variable social perspectives from its members. It only carries a subjective value and nothing close to be called scientific. And that's exactly what AR was debating about - the laws which are based on such subjective values than on science.
When it comes to setting up a benchmark as to what is normal and what is not normal, I suggest you look into the animal world for recording your observations. Only that can give you an appropriate idea as to what is normal and what is not. Does animals hump their newborn babies? If they don't, then the laws must have to be same for humans as well. That can probably define what is perversion and what is not. What is natural and what is not. Any defense against conducting such observations before being judgmental would go straight into the emotionally unstable humans category. And such people should refrain themselves from being in scientific debates and take up religion as an alternative.
i offer the following into the record:
The original posters took it upon themselves to manufacture their own reasons as to why they think these laws were written, then call them false and challenge you to debate them. You can't win an argument like that.
It may surprise you to know that it is not necessary to prove that there is a scientific basis for our current sex laws, or why a specific age was selected for determining consensual sex, or when sex is harmful to someone below a certain age, before legislation is written governing those areas. Instead, under our system of government, those laws must merely reflect the collective will of the people and not contradict any rights granted in the constitution.
i move that all discussion on this subject should cease and a poll created to determined the collective will of the people.
The original posters took it upon themselves to manufacture their own reasons as to why they think these laws were written, then call them false and challenge you to debate them. You can't win an argument like that.
It may surprise you to know that it is not necessary to prove that there is a scientific basis for our current sex laws, or why a specific age was selected for determining consensual sex, or when sex is harmful to someone below a certain age, before legislation is written governing those areas. Instead, under our system of government, those laws must merely reflect the collective will of the people and not contradict any rights granted in the constitution.
i move that all discussion on this subject should cease and a poll created to determined the collective will of the people.
leopold, ofcourse James R. could go for a Tyranny of the Majority. I think the real question is, would it benefit sciforms to simply silence those who disagree with the majority? Personally, I don't think it'd make for good science in some areas where many people dislike disturbing the status quo; something that many very good scientists have struggled with throughout the ages...
unless the science is regressive, then it is just boring rehashed bs.
what do you mean?
- Status