|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 19:39:39 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Proofs in ethics depend on reasons. "There is no realistic 'pro' conceivable that even approaches the cons" is the reason. Ethics 101. I don't need to list the evidence of the harm caused by adult sex with 4 year-olds every time some freakshow wants to force a hoop-jumping exercise. Firstly, it's not really "proof" in ethics anyway (proof is for math and legal trials); what it really is is evidence. What you stated, however, is not a reason, it's a conclusive, propositional claim. Someone could easily challenge the truthfulness of it, which would require you offering evidence to support it. What is your evidence for its truthfulness? How can you "prove" or even "provide evidence" that the negativity of potential child abuse (not even actual abuse, since there can't be any actual until the criteria is implemented) would outweigh the freedom to have sex for those who could and do consent? And I'll reiterate again: there can't be evidence for how you feel about things, because feelings about things are not statements about how things are.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 19:54:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 20:11:03 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:It is a different kind of "proof" based upon reasons and a philosophical foundation. As I made very clear, I don't need to list all of the "cons" each time the proposal is made, and there are no "pros" for the 4 year-old, but feel free to correct me. The proposing interlocutor would need to submit evidence to overturn the facts already established by experts and codified into current law. Yes, but you've yet to show what those reasons and foundation is. There probably isn't many, if any, pros for the 4-year-olds, but there would be plenty of pros for, say, the teenagers capable of consenting and who would with adults but can't under the current age-of-consent laws. How do you quantify the "pros" for them? And what "facts already established by experts" are you referring to? What would you say in response to someone posting a list of pro-to-neutral studies of pedophilia like THESE? Now, I haven't read any of them, and neither have you; but I'm also guessing that you (like myself) have done zero actual research into the subject in general. All you're doing is basing this on your gut reactions and social mores, reactions and mores that history has taught us are remarkably unreliable. And again for the disclaimer: saying they're unreliable in general does not mean they're wrong in this case, it only means that the mores/reactions alone are not enough to definitively determine that. Given that historical unreliability combined with our relative ignorance on the subject (compared to those that have actually studied it), it should dictate a less "morally righteous" position.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 20:30:30 GMT
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 20, 2017 20:33:47 GMT
Are you incapable of independent thought?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 20:36:35 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:What is the consensus in the field of professionals? I'm assuming the consensus would be that it's harmful, but I'm very much not sure how many professionals would be aware of all the relevant research compared to just their own. It's certainly not inconceivable that there could be radically different results in different cultures based on how other cultures' mores. EG, I think I remember the legal age of consent in Japan is 14, so I would be very surprised if the research on any harmful effects of sex with adolescents were the same here, where it's illegal, as opposed to in Japan, where it's legal.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 20:46:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 21:02:47 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Why should a lay debater consider these studies above the consensus studies and professionals, especially in the case of radical differences, even if we actually do read the studies before citing them in rebuttal? I guess it depends on what you mean by "consider." I think in most any discussion on any subject where you're a "lay debater," being a laymen should dictate a certain level of humility, which would mean now showing signs of moral righteousness as if you have no doubt as to the truthfulness of your beliefs that your conclusions rest upon. I also think that, in being a laymen, you should be more open to any given research, evidence, and other arguments that are against your position, since in being a laymen you're recognizing that your own position isn't resting upon a high level of solid expertise, or even an understanding of others' expertise. None of this means that you should simply change your position or be swayed by such arguments when you know that the general consensus is against something, but I do think it should mean you being open to the idea that they're wrong. The reason I bring up historical precedents is because it's easy to find subjects where expert majorities were overturned, and cases where the moral outrage at the time over the issues ended up being completely unwarranted even though the morally outraged felt as certain about their righteousness as... well, anyone who's morally outraged feels certain about their righteousness. At the very least, it should mean not impugning the moral integrity, sympathy, empathy, etc. for people who don't share in that outrage but are simply uncertain regarding various facts when it comes to the issue. Essentially, this boils down to me saying "I'm relatively ignorant about pedophilia and the research done into its harm and how this research is affected by certain cultural mores/biases and how it might differ between cultures and what that would mean for various questions regarding any potential legality or consent-only approach." You seem to take my uncertainty and lack of moral outrage as me being some kind of sociopath and lacking sympathy/empathy, which really offends me. If pedophilia is, indeed, actually harmful to most or even all children, and this "harm" isn't in any way dependent on social mores about sex, then I would unequivocally be against it. I simply don't know enough of the research to say that's the case definitively so, but what very little I do know would suggest that it more than likely is. In the meantime, that's enough for me, as a lay debater, for now, to be against it; but it's not enough for me to partake in various moral outrage arguments against it.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 21:27:04 GMT
Eva Yojimbo said:1) It is a fact I find it very hard to believe that someone could consider the possibility (prepubescent) without some other driver. You may not like that, but it is still a fact. 2) That leaves me with why "there is no conceivable way it could be worth it" based on the professional consensus and it's components, and to judge negatively those lay people that do promote it by holding up "unreliable" studies against the experience/study backed professional consensus, especially when these lay promoters namecall and call for "proof" or just call the position outlined in this para "moral outrage"?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 22:04:13 GMT
Eva Yojimbo said:1) It is a fact I find it very hard to believe that someone could consider the possibility (prepubescent) without some other driver. You may not like that, but it is still a fact. 2) That leaves me with why "there is no conceivable way it could be worth it" based on the professional consensus and it's components, and to judge negatively those lay people that do promote it by holding up "unreliable" studies against the experience/study backed professional consensus, especially when these lay promoters namecall and call for "proof" or just call the position outlined in this para "moral outrage"? 1. My other "driver" is my philosophy of rationality which makes me very skeptical of emotion, intuition, instincts, and other "gut-feeling" type reactions being good guides for truth or morality. Of course, the driver for many in "defending" pedophilia (which I haven't, btw, defended) would be that they were pedophiles and want to have sex with kids, so I can understand your suspicion. 2. Well, the "conceivable way it could be worth it" is if the experts were wrong, and there are always conceivable ways that experts could be wrong. I'll give you one obvious way in which experts come to be wrong: their own experiences biases them. By that I mean experts in certain fields, like psychology, would only end up seeing people that were damaged by pedophile experiences; they wouldn't necessarily see those who weren't damaged or who considered their experiences positive. So it would be easy for such an expert to think that all experiences were negative simply because they only encountered the negative ones. It's similar to a bias I see in judges, where because they typically have cases where a pitbull attacked a dog or a person, they conclude that pitbulls are aggressive; meanwhile, they often don't consider that, one, other dogs could be statistically just as aggressive but not do the kind of damage pitbulls could do, and, two, they don't ever see any cases where a pitbull never attacked anyone. So experts aren't immune to these kind of biases. Peer-reviewed research helps with this to an extent, but it's also worth noting that social sciences (especially) aren't always as methodologically rigorous as hard sciences like physics and biology. Someone like Richard Carrier has even lamented (and wrote quite a bit about) the bad methodology that history studies is riddled with. Finally, with us both being laypersons, we really have no way of saying which studies are reliable and which aren't. Those that I linked to may be reliable, or they may not be; some may be more or less so than others. The same would be true of those on the "harmful" side. I'm just saying that in being laypersons we should, therefor, be a bit more open-minded on the issue in general.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 22:33:47 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:1) So by what means do you have to call it "moral outrage", and not basic reasoning coupled with an understandable protective attitude toward what I know are the highly vulnerable? 2) Why should an assertion that "the professional consensus is wrong" be considered in a lay debate? Why should personal and historical experience of being one and interacting with children not be strong evidence when strongly supported by the professional consensus? I'm not suggesting the experts are never wrong, certainly they always are about something. But still why should a person advocating for consent in such a way be considered without evidence supported by the professional consensus? Do you think that the professional consensus is no more reliable?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 22:59:45 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:1) So by what means do you have to call it "moral outrage", and not basic reasoning coupled with an understandable protective attitude toward what I know are the highly vulnerable? 2) Why should an assertion that "the professional consensus is wrong" be considered in a lay debate? Why should personal and historical experience of being one and interacting with children not be strong evidence when strongly supported by the professional consensus? 1. It's "moral outrage" precisely when there's a lack of basic reasoning, and that lack of basic reasoning can come in different forms. Accusing people of being pedophiles because they're advocating a consent-only sex approach is a sign of moral outrage lacking reason; trying to frame the consent-only approach as advocating for predators abusing children is a sign of moral outrage lacking reason; assuming that all adult/child sex is always innately harmful even when there's some research to suggest that the harm is dependent on many factors is a sign of moral outrage lacking reason. You can still be against pedophilia as a laymen without resorting to the bad arguments above that are almost always predicated on moral outrage rather than good reasons. Yes, it's understandable to have a protective attitude towards the highly vulnerable, and it's in large part that which keeps me from saying that I think the issue is even seriously worth pursuing (By "seriously pursuing" I don't mean research, which is fine; but I mean "seriously pursuing" in the "let's make a consent-only approach or something like it legal and see what happens," which seems far too reckless given the state of evidence); but you have to understand that such protective attitudes tend to come from xenophobia or "fear of the unknown." Evolutionarily speaking, it makes sense for humans and animals to have that fear, because anything "unknown" can potentially be dangerous and threatening, and you're going to have better survival skills by assuming the unknown is dangerous than in blindly leaping into it ("curiosity killed the cat," and all that). But it's an absolute fact that sometimes the unknown is genuinely dangerous, and sometimes it's not, or sometimes it is only in certain ways in certain situations. One of the things that tend to divide liberals and conservatives, in general, is how they respond to the unknown, and there's some science that suggest that conservatives, in general, react with more fear/negativity to change and the unknown than liberals; but I also suspect that liberals can be just as fear-based and reactionary on certain issues themselves. So, yes, the protective attitude is understandable, but that doesn't mean it's right because what it's based on is the evolutionary paradigm of "better safe than sorry," which is less about accurately assessing threats than it is about assuming the unknown is a threat and not bothering to figure out whether it really is or not. This is why research is GENERALLY needed to know, with any kind of certainty, whether our fears and reservations and "moral outrages" are warranted or false, baseless, and reactionary. It would really depend on where the professional consensus is coming from. By that I mean this: is the professional consensus coming from people who have thoroughly reviewed all the research and come to a reasoned conclusion based on it, or is it coming from experts who have been perhaps biased by their own limited experience who haven't, perhaps, reviewed all the research and come to a conclusion? I have no way of knowing, and I'm not going to pretend as if I do. The term "expert consensus" is a bit too vague on a subject that can be studied in multiple ways and multiple angles (psychology, sociology, neurology, philosophy, and probably others could all be "experts" of a kind on the issue; I would be most interested in those whose fields focused on research rather than, say, treatment of victims and/or pedophiles). Just for comparison, this is quite different than something like climate science, where most of the "expert consensus" was from within that very limited and specialized field, so you could almost guarantee that they knew all the relevant data and had drawn their conclusions from that. I don't think the same is true on this subject. At the very least, it seems like it would cross too many different disciplines to have a single "expert consensus," as opposed to "consensuses among experts in different fields." Given that, I think it's fine to "go with" the "expert consensus" on the matter, but I think it's smart and honest to do so very tentatively, as in "I'm going to go with the expert consensus, but I can understand why/how it could be wrong either in general or to some extent."
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 21, 2017 1:29:17 GMT
Eva Yojimbo said:By what basis do you ascribe a firmly-held belief to be a "frame"? Research accepted by the professional consensus? One can be ambivalent about pedophilia without accusing one of being dishonest and "framing" at the very start of a conversation. And what is your basis for asserting that it is "predicated" on "moral outrage" as opposed to having derived from professional consensus, extensive personal experience, reason? What's your basis for asserting that it tends to come from "xenophobia" or fear of the "unknown" instead of from seeing just how vulnerable and delicate they are first hand, both physically and mentally, supported by the opinions of the accepted professionals? And even if such hypothetical were true, how is it in any way superior to "support of legalizing sexual interaction between adults and prepubescents tends to come from pedophiles", or even "insisting that proposals legalizing sexual interaction between adults and prepubescents should be debated on no rational basis and not dismissed - tends to come from pedophiles" But again, the professional consensus is that it is highly harmful. Are they as a whole driven by xenophobia or "fear of the unknown"? And once analyzed rationally, and even if the urge is prior, what's your basis for considering any evolutionary urges against adult/child as being erroneous without evidence to support it? Haven't urges brought about by evolution been overwhelmingly beneficial overall? That the neutral and deleterious ones are outliers many times spurred by changes in lifestyle? Wouldn't that protective attitude arise not just by evolution but by experience and reason directly supported by the professional conclusions of the consensus? And research is certainly not lay debate. And what's your basis for concluding it's from a general "better safe than sorry" reaction as opposed to a more direct effect of prepubescent sex reducing a child's chances of making it to the the point of successfully raising offspring it's own in families that practiced it? Are there any respected professionals recommending adult/prepubescent sex? If so, by what proportion to the ones who recommend against? What's your basis for this, as in your own words above you said - "I have no way of knowing, and I'm not going to pretend as if I do"? Why wouldn't a "consensuses among experts in different fields" be superior to a single "expert consensus"? As there's no reasonable way for a layperson to conclude otherwise, how would 'tentatively" going with the "expert consensus" be smarter or more honest than just going with the "expert consensus"? And how would "tentatively going with" be distinguished from "going with"? And that still leaves us with "why should a lay debater consider an opinion from another lay debater that contradicts the "expert consensus", especially in the case of radical differences?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 21, 2017 17:47:26 GMT
Eva Yojimbo said:By what basis do you ascribe a firmly-held belief to be a "frame"? Framing the argument is any attempt made at saying "this is what the argument is about." Someone advocating a consent-only approach is arguing that "anyone who can and does consent should be allowed to have sex;" so trying to frame their argument as "4-year-olds should be abused by predators" is just very dishonest because that's not their argument; it's just one consequence of what could happen with a consent-only approach, and it completely ignores the virtues they see in the freedom/liberty to do what one is capable of and consents to doing. It's very analogous to the attempt at framing pro-choice as "people who advocate killing fetuses" without understanding the choice aspect and the various situations where abortion might be the best thing for everyone involved. Research accepted by the professional consensus? I don't know if the professional consensus has seen/read it and weighed in on it. Still, there's no denying that the research exists and that its very existence counts as some evidence for the "not harmful" group (we could certainly debate how strong/weak evidence it is; but it wouldn't be honest to pretend as if it's not evidence at all). One can be ambivalent about pedophilia without accusing one of being dishonest and "framing" at the very start of a conversation. And what is your basis for asserting that it is "predicated" on "moral outrage" as opposed to having derived from professional consensus, extensive personal experience, reason? I don't think I accused anyone of dishonesty at the "very start," but it was certainly "framing" to try to discuss a consent-only approach as an "advocates sex with 4-year-olds" approach. The basis for asserting that it's predicated on moral outrage are precisely that some of the arguments, including how it was framed from the start, would only be made by someone who was morally outraged; not someone who was trying to accurately describe what the argument was and counter it. Plus, as I've said, the same/similar tactics were used by those morally outraged at things like homosexuality; eg, the "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage is one predicated on moral outrage, and it's not all that dissimilar to the notion that there would necessarily be rampant child sex-abuse under a consent-only approach to sex. What's your basis for asserting that it tends to come from "xenophobia" or fear of the "unknown" instead of from seeing just how vulnerable and delicate they are first hand, both physically and mentally, supported by the opinions of the accepted professionals? And even if such hypothetical were true, how is it in any way superior to "support of legalizing sexual interaction between adults and prepubescents tends to come from pedophiles", or even "insisting that proposals legalizing sexual interaction between adults and prepubescents should be debated on no rational basis and not dismissed - tends to come from pedophiles" The xenophobia is in the desire to protect the vulnerable from the unknown that's perceived as potentially dangerous. We see that at work all the time in over-protective parents who try to protect their kids from anything and everything. As good examples from recent history, parents trying to protect their children from the "evil" influences of rock (or rap) music, or protect them from the influence of violent video games. Parents "feared" these things long before there was any research suggesting they were harmful at all. Even beyond kids you could see it at work in the fear-based propaganda against marijuana long before there was any research to suggest if it was harmful. Like I said earlier, when it comes to sex in general I think you still see a lot of Puritanical/Christian xenophobic attitude towards it, the notion that it's something innately sinful, dirty, harmful, etc. I can see it (in part) in how completely ignorant most adults are when it comes to facts about how sexual children are at all (many are shocked when/if they find out that children, even as young as 2, masturbate); and that ignorance seems to stem from this false notion of "innocent children" where "innocence" is tied in with sexuality (if children are innocent, they can't be sexual). The reason why I suspect it's more xenophobic-related than based on the "opinions of the accepted experts" is because I can almost guarantee you that no parent researches the opinions of accepted experts before deciding whether pedophilia is bad. Most people, in general, don't deeply question most social mores and ethical positions, and even fewer do so to the point that they consult research of experts' consensus. Ask yourself why so many people in Germany in WW2 didn't resist the Nazis; the simple answer is that people's instincts about morality is shaped far more by the influences of evolution and social mores than on any scientific or rational investigation of their legitimacy. If you're raised in an environment where Jews are considered inferior, then it's very easy to just blindly accept that without ever questioning it. I mean, did YOU do any research into what the experts thought about pedophilia before arguing in these threads? I know I didn't. But again, the professional consensus is that it is highly harmful. Are they as a whole driven by xenophobia or "fear of the unknown"? Like I said, it would depend on what experts you mean. Experts can be biased by their own experience as I explained above. It's easy for them to only see effects as opposed to causes. The causal aspect is what research is for. I don't know how much research there is and how it balances on the harmful/not harmful scale, nor if they discern causes. Let me give an example: back on IMDb 1, Blade made a thread about how children of homosexual parents are more likely to be fat and depressed. The research he offered was solid enough to where we all more-or-less accepted that the statement was true. However, stating this effect didn't argue for any cause. Most of us (by "us" I mean myself, Cash, DA, et al.) that the "cause" was most likely the stigma these children faced having homosexual parents. That seemed (to us) far more likely than the notion that homosexuals were somehow innately bad at parenting. The analogy with pedophilia and experts would be this: even if some experts see the negative effects, this doesn't really address what the cause is, nor does it mean that the causes they see are universal, or even perhaps in the majority. So it would be very easy for experts to be biased in such a way. Again, research could help remedy this, and I simply don't know what the "consensus" of the research is. And once analyzed rationally, and even if the urge is prior, what's your basis for considering any evolutionary urges against adult/child as being erroneous without evidence to support it? Haven't urges brought about by evolution been overwhelmingly beneficial overall? That the neutral and deleterious ones are outliers many times spurred by changes in lifestyle? The key thing to remember about evolution is that it's tuned us for survival and reproduction, not for finding truths, and there are many instances where in tuning us for survival is probably did so in a way that made us wrong the vast majority of the time. To take an example, human's tendency to ascribe agency to effects makes sense from a survival perspective: if you assume that rustle in the bush is a hungry predator, you're more likely to survive if it is as opposed to the guy that doesn't assume that. Now, it might only be a predator 1/100 times. This would mean the "assume it's a predator" guy is wrong 99/100 times, but each time he's wrong he still survives, and the one time he's right he also has a better chance at surviving. So in tuning us to fear the unknown, evolution didn't care that most of the time the unknown wasn't anything genuinely threatening to us. Now, just like with the "agency" example, it's obvious that sometimes our fears are warranted, that sometimes what we instinctual consider immoral/wrong we do so because it IS genuinely dangerous to our survival and the well-being of others. But my point in general has been that you need more than the "moral outrage" reaction to prove that, that the reaction by itself is an extremely unreliable gauge for whether something is genuinely wrong and/or harmful. And what's your basis for concluding it's from a general "better safe than sorry" reaction as opposed to a more direct effect of prepubescent sex reducing a child's chances of making it to the the point of successfully raising offspring it's own in families that practiced it? I'm not sure why you think prepubescent sex would reduce a child's chances of making it to the point of successfully raising offspring of their own... Are there any respected professionals recommending adult/prepubescent sex? If so, by what proportion to the ones who recommend against? None that I know of; but I would again make the distinction between "recommending it" (which would imply there's something good about it), and simply saying "it's OK" (which would only imply there's nothing harmful about it). What's your basis for this, as in your own words above you said - "I have no way of knowing, and I'm not going to pretend as if I do"? The basis is in the fact that different fields would/could cover the issue from different angles. The sociologists wouldn't study it in the same way that psychologists or philosophers or neuroscientists might. This isn't the case for "climate science" where it was mostly just climatologists studying it. Why wouldn't a "consensuses among experts in different fields" be superior to a single "expert consensus"? The former might be superior if the experts in a given field had diligently studied all the available research. My whole point is that in just saying "expert consensus" you aren't really making the distinction between the experts that have studied all available research and those that haven't. As there's no reasonable way for a layperson to conclude otherwise, how would 'tentatively" going with the "expert consensus" be smarter or more honest than just going with the "expert consensus"? And how would "tentatively going with" be distinguished from "going with"? The "tentatively" contains a healthy dose of "I could be wrong about this." Further, it contains a dose of "I can understand how/why the 'expert consensus' could be wrong." Let me offer another example of the latter. I know we got into about quantum physics once upon a time to and you also appealed to expert consensus. The major thing I tried to explain to you is that within quantum physics there were two very different kinds of experts: experimental physicists, who used the basic formulations for pragmatic purposes (like engineering); and theoretical physicists, who were still trying to "explain" what quantum physics really meant and if there was some more general theory that could explain it better. When it came to the former, the vast majority were not even informed of much theoretical work, and were not even taught ideas like "many-worlds" or "Schrodinger's Cat" because, to paraphrase physicist Matthew Rave, those were philosophical concepts and not relevant to the work of a practicing physicist. So even though you could consider both experimental and theoretical physicists experts on quantum mechanics, they had very different kinds of expertise, and the former were often quite ignorant when it came to the philosophy behind the concept of something like many-worlds. Given that, it wouldn't really be fair to speak of a generalized "expert consensus" on many-worlds, because some quantum physicists would've been entirely ignorant of the relevant information about it. To make the analogy with pedophilia, a psychologist might regularly deal with people who've been victims of pedophilia; but the very nature of their job would mean that they've probably ONLY seen those who thought the experience was negative (thus biasing the psychologist's conclusions), and even in coming to the conclusion that it is harmful the psychologist wouldn't have been able to discern a direct cause for the harm. So what you really need, then, are "experts" engaged in the research side of things, in reviewing as many cases as possible, preferably cross-cultural, and noting all those that were harmful VS not-harmful, and trying to find causal connections between the situations concerning each. If there's a consensus just among THOSE experts, I don't know what it is. And that still leaves us with "why should a lay debater consider an opinion from another lay debater that contradicts the "expert consensus", especially in the case of radical differences? Like I said, it depends on what you mean by "consider;" you almost certainly shouldn't "consider it" to the point of rejecting the expert consensus, but you may consider it to the point of questioning/investigating the expert consensus to better educate yourself on the issue while being more tentative in your own opinions on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 22, 2017 13:26:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 22, 2017 14:04:15 GMT
...And usually taken out of context... and don't really mean what he thinks they mean. jus' sayin' Contextualize, my man. To a and about a rape victim in an argument:"Some of us are actually smart enough to know how to avoid being sexually assaulted".
"I'm not demeaning a rape victim... I'm demeaning a bitch who happens to be a rape victim". To a black guy in an argument:Just like a spear chucker to think that he tears a new a$$hole from anybody."
"I took a boat from Africa. Your granddad says 'Hi'."
"I went with the "N---" at first... I went back and added the "a"... because I didn't want you to think that I was implying the real N word."
"Just like a j---a 👻 - BOO!".... to assume that he hurt somebody else when he really hasn't."
"Just like a N-- to worry about somebody else's spare change". pic vegas posted to black dude in an argument... pic prior to the KKK treatmentTopic rape:"Sometimes "No" doesn't mean "No", it means "Maybe, try harder." It takes a guy with a keen eye to know the difference." : why's it always Cine Cine Cine
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 24, 2017 19:22:36 GMT
Of course, the driver for many in "defending" pedophilia (which I haven't, btw, defended) would be that they were pedophiles and want to have sex with kids, so I can understand your suspicion. You have defended pedophilia via adult/minor sex, even going so far as to suggest that unqualified laypeople should "research" and "challenge" the mainline professional expert consensus and somehow weigh any contrary studies against it. And you engage in this defense/promotion without according to you even having undertaken this "research" you specify. So you don't meet even this basic standard you laid out, even if you could somehow magically conjure up a basis for you or any other layperson being qualified for it. Which raises the question: shouldn't the defense/promotion come after the research, even for lay person fancifulness? Of course that doesn't mean any particular support sets it, as there are always other possibilities. But as you noted here it is an evidence to weigh.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 25, 2017 8:22:27 GMT
Of course, the driver for many in "defending" pedophilia (which I haven't, btw, defended) would be that they were pedophiles and want to have sex with kids, so I can understand your suspicion. You have defended pedophilia via adult/minor sex, even going so far as to suggest that unqualified laypeople should "research" and "challenge" the mainline professional expert consensus and somehow weigh any contrary studies against it. There's that false statement again. I wonder: Is it a malicious lie, or just a statement of ignorance resulting from narrow-mindedness and reading comprehension failures? Or even both?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 25, 2017 11:04:56 GMT
You have defended pedophilia via adult/minor sex, even going so far as to suggest that unqualified laypeople should "research" and "challenge" the mainline professional expert consensus and somehow weigh any contrary studies against it. There's that false statement again. I wonder: Is it a malicious lie, or just a statement of ignorance resulting from narrow-mindedness and reading comprehension failures? Or even both? It is neither malicious nor a lie. Are you suggesting that for him to post that unqualified laypeople should "research" and "challenge" the mainline professional expert consensus that adult/minor sex is harmful and somehow weigh any contrary studies against that consensus is not defending adult/minor sex? When he/himself specifically has also said that he has not even undertaken said research? Or are you claiming that he did not do that? Or are you just chanting again? Is this in the same vein ay you "not" having defended the killing of toddlers at a their parent's discretion?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 25, 2017 11:10:03 GMT
Are you suggesting that for him to post that unqualified laypeople should "research" and "challenge" the mainline professional expert consensus that adult/minor sex is harmful and somehow weigh any contrary studies against that consensus is not defending adult/minor sex? Yes. Is this English?
|
|