Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
- Status
I don't believe that this subject falls into that category.
Were you concerned about the bs term? Not sure if it would be classified as an overly insulting insult; even Tiassa has been known to use it, in its unnabreviated form, no less when he loses a bit of his cool.
Last edited:
every subject that is provocative is not automatically progressive or interesting. most likely this debate would just turn people off. The topic line is ill conceived and stupid as well. It is like asking is is heterosexuality pseudoscience or is homosexuality pseudoscience.
the ideal being heterosexuality and homosexuality being between two adults (keyword ADULT) capable of consenting and having the capacity to understand what they are consenting to. what is so hard to understand?
Last edited:
Sexual penetration might be harmful to someone below a certain age depending on the other partners age and physical factors. The word sex does not always imply penetration and other forms can be quite harmless. But that's where emotions and social psychology take control of logic and declare all acts as crime.
Sorry, AR, objection noted, chastisement accepted. Please allow me to rephrase...
Exactly what picture do you conjure up of "sex" with a newborn? Someone licking her clitoris (or his penis), or perhaps penetration? You tell me?
Now, without implying any offense to you personally, could you please, pretty please, answer the following question?
Is there any child too young to have sex with a "thirty something" adult?
You get to the problem with AR's arguments yourself in this thread, in that nowhere has he planted his flag and stated what the cut off is. That is why I have mentioned the 'slippery slope', and also stated that if this was a discussion about the variation in age of consent laws it might have merit.
AR has never considered a limit. That is why he is sick.
Currently 'our side' has the practice illegal, We don't have to prove anything therefore. We don't care if some people find the reasons for it's illegality uncompelling. We don't want to tolerate the practice in the society we live in, and don't have to justify that rationale to paedophiles, and paedophile sympathisers.
The argument either way need not be scientific. I'm afraid AR's whole debate is based upon a false premise, that it can be proven scientifically. Simply, it's unethical to scientifically prove if there is harm or not. The debate is about ethics, and some science. It is not wholly science.
I don't believe he's quoted the AOC for any country once. He hasn't contrasted them once.
No, he's trying to justify sex with children of an non-specified age.
He is advocating it's OK to break the law. It's a fine line, or a slippery slope.
you must put it to a vote to determine the collective will of the people as to AOC, that's all there is to say about the matter.
Perhaps, but it seems that Ancient is contending that "age of consent" is not a valid concept no matter what it is set at, how it is defined nor what the standards are.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Maybe ancient thinks that if it is subjective it doesn't exist.
As in, I think, therefore I am not?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
it all hinges on the collective will of the people.
the values have been set.
to my knowledge ancient regime nor scott has offered any evidence that the collective will of the people is in error in this area.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2178829&postcount=6
Well, I guess that sums it up. In reviewing the OP and subsequent posts, I found that AR did, in fact, answer the AOC question. My bad.
Apparently, all children, without restriction, are "old enough to consent to sex". Ancient, why even bother with the concept of consent? Let's simplify this even further. Children exist, therefore they should have sex. Do you agree with this premise?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2178829&postcount=6
Well, I guess that sums it up. In reviewing the OP and subsequent posts, I found that AR did, in fact, answer the AOC question. My bad.
Apparently, all children, without restriction, are "old enough to consent to sex". Ancient, why even bother with the concept of consent? Let's simplify this even further. Children exist, therefore they should have sex. Do you agree with this premise?
Majority of humans are stupid(i don't wish to think of a scientifically appropriate term since its informal). All they do is to conform blindly than rationalize on their own without being influenced.
lemme quote someone who once said something about this majority factor.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
-Giordano Bruno
unless you are saying you are above the law then you must demonstrate that the collective will of the people is in error in regards to AOC.
What was the scientific basis on which humans made the AOC laws? Answer to that explains the collective will of people.
a poll tells you the collective will of the people.
- Status