|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 2, 2018 6:11:42 GMT
Just like your utterly irrelevant “mightbe”s that the emeritus professor at West Virginia University was a crackpot?  That the professionals are shoveling adult-kid-sex-tamping-down lies because of their cowardice, or "moral outrage", or "Puritanism", or "xenophobia"  is a bit more of a wild hopeful "mightbe" Hail Mary than who-knows-what with some book review of things that haven't been incorporated into the expert consensus that's promulgated via professionals, teachers, doctors, textbooks, laws, etc. Who said anything about lies? It’s entirely possible that any given experts don’t know about the relevant research out there in regards to the source and frequency of harm. Again, you have this ignorant and false assumption about how science and expertise in various fields work. Experts aren’t a hive mind. Even those in the same/similar fields don’t necessarily study the same things. Textbooks on the same subjects are often very different. Within the same fields, you can have completely different approaches. Not all experts bother to read much (as in in journal publications) beyond what’s necessary for a degree. There are not always consensuses in any fields on any given subject. And, again, I said nothing about the moral outrage/Puritanism/xenophobia of experts, but keep repeating that lie. If you think being concerned about one’s professional career is “cowardice,” then that’s your claim, not mine. IE, you can't prove it and are going to rely on Arlon's "status quo" argument for why you don't have to. Nah, I rely on the professionals. The only one who’s posted any “professionals” in this thread is me. You rely on what you believe the professionals think despite that you have not one bit of evidence that’s what they actually think. Your stupid “baseline” is just Arlon’s Status Quo argument (“those arguing against the status quo have the burden of proof”) in another guise. Another vacuous ad hominem, followed by a non sequitur and something I never said. What else is the scrambling on about the "pro-to-neutral" of adult-child sex, based on the most absurd of arsepulls? The attacks variously of "dishonesty" and the flip sincere but based on "moral outrage", Puritanism", "xenophobia" , and gotta ignore the info promulgated by the experts (who for some reason spread sinister anti- adult-child sex info!) and research whatever "pro-to-neutral" adult-child sex "info", that you said you hadn't done, then dumped a bunch of dead text from "younglovechan" of "studies" you said you never read, and finally a book review, 30+ year-old article, and an Amazon listing. ::crazytime:: Pure, absurd scrambling advocacy. The “pro-to-neutral” of adult-child sex was a statement of fact that such studies show that such a thing exists. The dishonesty was in you framing a consent-only approach as advocating adult-child sex. The moral outrage was a categorizing of your debate tactic and lack of logic and facts. Puritanism was about American attitudes towards sex (in general). Xenophobia was about parents being over-protective of kids (in general) using past examples of where they were concerned about harmless things. All of that argues for the fact that your (and most) opinions aren’t based on “experts” or “expert consensuses,” which they are not as evidenced by the fact you can’t post them. [ IE, you have absolutely no evidence that emeritus professor (and I guess the publishing house at Rutledge university) are any of the negative things you implied. I nor any other lay person, armchair bound and voluminous with the horsesh!t though they may be, have any means to weigh book reviews and Amazon listings and Wikipedia biographies against and to overrule the promulgated expert consensus. It’s amazing to me that you don’t realize the absurdity of your argument. I’m posting real studies by real experts, but to you they’re meaningless compared to a phantom “promulgated expert consensus,” a promulgated expert consensus that is so powerful and so pervasive that you can’t find one stitch of evidence that it actually exists. [ If in your fantasyland it were accepted into the promulgated expert consensus, what do you think it would say for greenlighting adult-child sex?  Or how it would affect your claim that a specific consent regime that only requires a child express want to an adult, however coached, bribed, etc., in order for the adult to have sex with the toddler, prepubescent, etc., would not open up countless to adult-child sex? First, your questions look like a blatant diversionary tactic so that you don’t have to address the content of the study. Second, according to the study, that IS the expert consensus (remember, a meta-study is a study of other studies). Third, as to your questions: I would think it would say exactly what it says. I never claimed that a consent-only approach wouldn’t open up countless children to sex; that is, again, your failed reading comprehension. |
|
That the professionals are shoveling adult-kid-sex-tamping-down lies because of their cowardice, or "moral outrage", or "Puritanism", or "xenophobia"