' + proboards.escape_html(r.items[0].snippet.title) + '

^tpfkar

RED == what you clipped out. Well, a some of it anyway.

It's entirely relevant. If a source can promulgate "misguided/sensationalized" lies/misinformation, but can also promulgate expert consensuses, and you're claiming they're promulgating the latter, then the burden is on you to show that's what they're doing.

It's another of your many utterly irrelevant "mightbe"s that you arse-pulled in your advocacy of adult-kid sex.

It's you guys wanting the kids available for adult banging that have to overturn the kid-bits cart.

Just like your utterly irrelevant “mightbe”s that the emeritus professor at West Virginia University was a crackpot?

Of course, yes. You made the claim. Burden is yours to prove it.

Of course, no, the claim was made in response to your ass-fling of "moral outrage" et al.,

Of course yes, and it makes not one iota of difference what the claim was made in response to. You made the claim, your burden to support it. Only Arlon and Erjen argues against this basic notion.

PROVE IT.

Alas for you and younglovechan, no, it is the baseline.

IE, you can't prove it and are going to rely on Arlon's "status quo" argument for why you don't have to.

How would I do that? You're setting up ridiculous hurdles that nobody could jump over. The fact that they've been published in peer-review journals already means that other experts have reviewed them and found them worth publishing. That's what peer-review is. Do you think all peer review studies, after getting published, are then passed around to all experts in the field and a vote is taken and tabulated on how many accept them?

Ahh, the "ridiculous hurdles" for you to get into the kids drawers. That the professionals in the field think that adults banging the kids is "pro-to-neutral", but they're just cowards, "morally outrage"ed, "xenophobes"

Another vacuous ad hominem, followed by a non sequitur and something I never said.

Yes, SOME emeritus professor has had their conclusions rejected, some are unscrupulous, notoriety-seeking, crackpot creationists; but where's your evidence THIS one is? See how that SOME thing works? When I point out that SOMEtimes the media/law/teachers promulgate nonsense, you reject it and demand evidence that on THIS subject they are; but when you point out that SOMEtimes emeritus professors are all ^ those things, for some reason you think that's different.

And many many just got it wrong. And I don't need to worry about THIS book review

you published, that you noted repeatedly when you fielded youbglovechan's un-linked text list that you'd read NONE of. And in any case, utterly irrelevant except to those who'll fling any absurdity to get the kids available for sex to adults, until there's a consensus among the experts in the field - which they'll promulgate through other professionals, textbooks, teachers, media, laws, etc., of which we peeps will all be exposed (npi!) to from that distribution. Until then, it's just the wild hopes of the ever-conspiratorial jabbering adult-kid sex advocates.

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.

Which is what? And remember to prove it.

Here's another study for your perusal: Constantine, Larry L."Child Sexuality: Recent Developments and Implications for Treatment, Prevention, and Social Policy," International Journal of Medicine and Law, No. 2, pp. 55-67, 1983.

And in case you want to pull another ad hominem, here's the author's bio: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Constantine

Here's another book length study on the subject that won the Los Angeles Times Book Award.

Nah, you remember to suck it. And what do you think this article from 1983 by a guy that ended up doing software engineering and an Amazon book ad say about adult-kid (as in prepubescent, toddlers, etc.) sex? And what do you think they say about a consent criteria that only requires a child to articulate want to an adult in order for that adult to have "sex" with the child?

Are you really this illiterate?

First, from the Wikipedia bio link:

In 1973 he became Director of Research, Concord, Massachusetts Family Service Society. From 1973 to 1980 he was Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Tufts University, School of Medicine. Until 1987 he was Assistant Professor of Human Development and Family Studies (adjunct), University of Connecticut. From 1984 to 1986 he was also Clinical Supervisor, Adolescent and Family Intervention, LUK, Inc., Fitchburg, Mass.

...

Constantine trained under family therapy pioneers David Kantor and Fred and Bunny Duhl at the Boston Family Institute, completing a two-year post-graduate certificate program in 1973. From 1973 to 1980 he was an Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry in the Tufts University School of Medicine training family therapists and supervising trainees at Boston State Hospital. He became a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and later a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in Massachusetts and was designated an Approved Supervisor by the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.

His contributions to theory and research in family therapy and human systems theory were summarized in Family Paradigms (Guilford Press, 1986), a book heralded at the time as “one of the finest theoretical books yet published in the family therapy field”[8] and “among the most significant developments of the decade.”[9] This work has also seen application in organization development.

To say he "ended up doing software engineering" is completely irrelevant to his clear expertise in the field of family therapy and psychiatry. Also, that's not an "article" but a meta-study published in a peer-reviewed journal. So, again, it's a study by an expert of other studies done by other experts. Since you're too lazy to read for yourself, here's some of the pertinent conclusions (and, remember, much of this is him summarizing many other studies):

The most important and consistent findings should not be in the least surprising, but many parents, as well as therapists, jurists, and social workers, express shocked disbelief when they hear it.

(1) There is a range of outcomes in both the short term effects and long term consequences. These range from clearly traumatic experiences which appear to have caused serious social and psychological impairment, through experiences in which no negative effects are discernible, to instances where the early sexual encounters were experienced as positive or appear to have been beneficial.

Two thirds of the studies reviewed at least some children who were unimpaired by their experiences or unaffected in any measurable or observable way. And a fifth of studies identified at least some children who seem to have been positively and/or who personally evaluated their experience as a positive/beneficial one...

(10) The most important determinant in the outcome of childhood incest or adult-child sexual encounters is the child's perception of freedom of choice in participating.

Not the nature of the activity, the age of the child, the structure of the incidents, or even the assessment of adult caretakers, is as important as whether or not the child felt free to participate or not in the sexual activity...

The research supports the notion that early sexual experiences of the kind being considered are not, in and of themselves, the causes of social or psychological impairment...

It is worth noting that nothing in the preceding summary supports the notion that child sexuality is in any fundamental way different from adult sexuality. The factors which emerge as important in differentiating more negative experiences of children from less negative ones are simply the same as ones which influence the outcomes of adult experiences...

Were we to base our legal structure on the scientific findings available now, it would have to distinguish three forms of participation by the child: unambiguously voluntary participation, where the child was clearly an initiator or willing and active participant in the sexual activities; unambiguously involuntary, where the use of force, threat of force, or other serious consequences or coercion precludes voluntary participation; and ambiguous participation, where the nature of the child's participation was unclear...

In non-peer sexual activities (not assault) where one or both participants is a minor, the perception of free choice of the younger partner would determine legal status. The determination would be made on the basis of the child's own testimony in an in-depth interview by a court-appointed professional. Where the younger partner is determined to have clearly and unambiguously participated willingly, in his or her own perception, then no crime would have been committed...

All cases of sexual activities between a minor and a person who is in a position of responsibility or authority over the minor would be treated as non-peer relationships. Unless it is determine beyond reasonable doubt by preliminary interview that the younger partner was clearly and unambiguously a willing participant, the presumption would be that the position of authority or responsibility was misused and a crime would be charged. The burden of proof that there was no misuse of position would shift to the accused. Where misuse of authority or responsibility is not then disproved, there would be an additional penalty for misuse of authority.

What say you to that?

Everything I've seen needs rearranging
And for anyone who thinks it's strange
Then you should be the first to want to make this change
And for everyone who thinks that life is just a game
Do you like the part you're playing?
-- Love (Arthur Lee) - "You Set the Scene"

cupcakes
Elite Member

@cupcakes
Posts: 5,158

If you could be a God... May 1, 2018 3:08:18 GMT

Quote

Post by cupcakes on May 1, 2018 3:08:18 GMT

^tpfkar

RED == what you clipped out. Well, a some of it anyway.

It's another of your many utterly irrelevant "mightbe"s that you arse-pulled in your advocacy of adult-kid sex.

It's you guys wanting the kids available for adult banging that have to overturn the kid-bits cart.

Just like your utterly irrelevant “mightbe”s that the emeritus professor at West Virginia University was a crackpot?

Of course, no, the claim was made in response to your ass-fling of "moral outrage" et al.,

Of course yes, and it makes not one iota of difference what the claim was made in response to. You made the claim, your burden to support it. Only Arlon and Erjen argues against this basic notion.

Alas for you and younglovechan, no, it is the baseline.

IE, you can't prove it and are going to rely on Arlon's "status quo" argument for why you don't have to.

Ahh, the "ridiculous hurdles" for you to get into the kids drawers. That the professionals in the field think that adults banging the kids is "pro-to-neutral", but they're just cowards, "morally outrage"ed, "xenophobes"

Another vacuous ad hominem, followed by a non sequitur and something I never said.

And many many just got it wrong. And I don't need to worry about THIS book review

you published, that you noted repeatedly when you fielded youbglovechan's un-linked text list that you'd read NONE of. And in any case, utterly irrelevant except to those who'll fling any absurdity to get the kids available for sex to adults, until there's a consensus among the experts in the field - which they'll promulgate through other professionals, textbooks, teachers, media, laws, etc., of which we peeps will all be exposed (npi!) to from that distribution. Until then, it's just the wild hopes of the ever-conspiratorial jabbering adult-kid sex advocates.

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.

Nah, you remember to suck it. And what do you think this article from 1983 by a guy that ended up doing software engineering and an Amazon book ad say about adult-kid (as in prepubescent, toddlers, etc.) sex? And what do you think they say about a consent criteria that only requires a child to articulate want to an adult in order for that adult to have "sex" with the child?

Are you really this illiterate?

First, from the Wikipedia bio link:

In 1973 he became Director of Research, Concord, Massachusetts Family Service Society. From 1973 to 1980 he was Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Tufts University, School of Medicine. Until 1987 he was Assistant Professor of Human Development and Family Studies (adjunct), University of Connecticut. From 1984 to 1986 he was also Clinical Supervisor, Adolescent and Family Intervention, LUK, Inc., Fitchburg, Mass.

...

Constantine trained under family therapy pioneers David Kantor and Fred and Bunny Duhl at the Boston Family Institute, completing a two-year post-graduate certificate program in 1973. From 1973 to 1980 he was an Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry in the Tufts University School of Medicine training family therapists and supervising trainees at Boston State Hospital. He became a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and later a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in Massachusetts and was designated an Approved Supervisor by the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.

His contributions to theory and research in family therapy and human systems theory were summarized in Family Paradigms (Guilford Press, 1986), a book heralded at the time as “one of the finest theoretical books yet published in the family therapy field”[8] and “among the most significant developments of the decade.”[9] This work has also seen application in organization development.

To say he "ended up doing software engineering" is completely irrelevant to his clear expertise in the field of family therapy and psychiatry. Also, that's not an "article" but a meta-study published in a peer-reviewed journal. So, again, it's a study by an expert of other studies done by other experts. Since you're too lazy to read for yourself, here's some of the pertinent conclusions (and, remember, much of this is him summarizing many other studies):

The most important and consistent findings should not be in the least surprising, but many parents, as well as therapists, jurists, and social workers, express shocked disbelief when they hear it.

(1) There is a range of outcomes in both the short term effects and long term consequences. These range from clearly traumatic experiences which appear to have caused serious social and psychological impairment, through experiences in which no negative effects are discernible, to instances where the early sexual encounters were experienced as positive or appear to have been beneficial.

Two thirds of the studies reviewed at least some children who were unimpaired by their experiences or unaffected in any measurable or observable way. And a fifth of studies identified at least some children who seem to have been positively and/or who personally evaluated their experience as a positive/beneficial one...

(10) The most important determinant in the outcome of childhood incest or adult-child sexual encounters is the child's perception of freedom of choice in participating.

Not the nature of the activity, the age of the child, the structure of the incidents, or even the assessment of adult caretakers, is as important as whether or not the child felt free to participate or not in the sexual activity...

The research supports the notion that early sexual experiences of the kind being considered are not, in and of themselves, the causes of social or psychological impairment...

It is worth noting that nothing in the preceding summary supports the notion that child sexuality is in any fundamental way different from adult sexuality. The factors which emerge as important in differentiating more negative experiences of children from less negative ones are simply the same as ones which influence the outcomes of adult experiences...

Were we to base our legal structure on the scientific findings available now, it would have to distinguish three forms of participation by the child: unambiguously voluntary participation, where the child was clearly an initiator or willing and active participant in the sexual activities; unambiguously involuntary, where the use of force, threat of force, or other serious consequences or coercion precludes voluntary participation; and ambiguous participation, where the nature of the child's participation was unclear...

In non-peer sexual activities (not assault) where one or both participants is a minor, the perception of free choice of the younger partner would determine legal status. The determination would be made on the basis of the child's own testimony in an in-depth interview by a court-appointed professional. Where the younger partner is determined to have clearly and unambiguously participated willingly, in his or her own perception, then no crime would have been committed...

All cases of sexual activities between a minor and a person who is in a position of responsibility or authority over the minor would be treated as non-peer relationships. Unless it is determine beyond reasonable doubt by preliminary interview that the younger partner was clearly and unambiguously a willing participant, the presumption would be that the position of authority or responsibility was misused and a crime would be charged. The burden of proof that there was no misuse of position would shift to the accused. Where misuse of authority or responsibility is not then disproved, there would be an additional penalty for misuse of authority.

What say you to that?

(Apple) Smiling Face With Open Mouth & Closed Eyes

I say I'll read, paste back in the stuff you clip, and excoriate your latest frantic adult-kid "sex" advocacy Hail Mary in the morning. You come by then and get your copy for Word!

Eva Yojimbo: 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.

cupcakes
Elite Member

@cupcakes
Posts: 5,158

If you could be a God... May 1, 2018 6:15:32 GMT

Quote

Post by cupcakes on May 1, 2018 6:15:32 GMT

^tpfkar

Better do a brief reply. Maybe I'll be able to redo it in the morning.

RED == what you clipped out. Well, a some of it anyway.

It's another of your many utterly irrelevant "mightbe"s that you arse-pulled in your advocacy of adult-kid sex.

It's you guys wanting the kids available for adult banging that have to overturn the kid-bits cart.

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.

Of course, no, the claim was made in response to your ass-fling of "moral outrage" et al., and is of course the baseline. And regardless, of course, no, you guys wanting the kids available to adults for sex have to make the case that what's promulgated from the professionals is distinct from the "expert consensus", and based variously on "moral outrage", "Puritanism", "xenophobia" , or whatever other asspulls you fling at the wall.

Of course yes, and it makes not one iota of difference what the claim was made in response to. You made the claim, your burden to support it. Only Arlon and Erjen argues against this basic notion.

Of course, no, see what you clipped in red. ⇑

Alas for you and younglovechan, no, it is the baseline. You guys have to do the work to get the toddlers' knickers dropped. And do a whole lot better than "moral outrage!" and "Puritans!" and "xenophobes!"

and lions! and tigers! and bears! (npi!), and dead links to studies you said yourself you read none of

before arguing vociferously for the "pro-to-neutral" of the adult-child lovin', with "pro-to-neutral" being some

percentage self-reporting it, at least according to the book review you posted.

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. I'll let you and younglovechan do yours and Erj do his armchair scrambling for whatever bits you think serve your conspiratorial advocacies.

Ahh, the "ridiculous hurdles" for you to get into the kids drawers. That the professionals in the field think that adults banging the kids is "pro-to-neutral", but they're just cowards, "morally outrage"ed, "xenophobes"

, or whatever next arse-pull you fling? And pervy face icons aren't going to get you in any quicker.

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.

Of course you guys have to overcome the promulgated expert consensus, and so much better than your current steaming absurdities that don't make it out of laughland. Good luck!

And many many just got it wrong. And I don't need to worry about THIS book review

you published, that you noted repeatedly when you fielded youbglovechan's un-linked text list that you'd read NONE of. And in any case, utterly irrelevant except to those who'll fling any absurdity to get the kids available for sex to adults, until there's a consensus among the experts in the field - which they'll promulgate through other professionals, textbooks, teachers, media, laws, etc., of which we peeps will all be exposed (npi!) to from that distribution. Until then, it's just the wild hopes of the ever-conspiratorial jabbering adult-kid sex advocates.

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. I do know that you and younglovechan with your adult-child sex advocacy and Erj with his walmartnibirumasonry sure like to sling that crap to try though.

Nah, you remember to suck it. And what do you think this article from 1983 by a guy that ended up doing software engineering and an Amazon book ad say about adult-kid (as in prepubescent, toddlers, etc.) sex? And what do you think they say about a consent criteria that only requires a child to articulate want to an adult in order for that adult to have "sex" with the child?

Are you really this illiterate?

First, from the Wikipedia bio link:

I know, I should take this article from well over 30 years ago that hasn't made even a dent along your adult-child sex advocacy because you like his wiki bio.

... see wiki ...

<where did it go!?!>

To say he "ended up doing software engineering" is completely irrelevant to his clear expertise in the field of family therapy and psychiatry. Also, that's not an "article" but a meta-study published in a peer-reviewed journal. So, again, it's a study by an expert of other studies done by other experts. Since you're too lazy to read for yourself, here's some of the pertinent conclusions (and, remember, much of this is him summarizing many other studies):

Well he surely didn't keep pressing his study line of work, whatever you think the article and wiki bio say for your cause.

IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/695598/thread
IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/710299/thread
IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/693442/thread

... whole lot of nothing that would get you to adult-child sex, even if it were accepted by the expert consensus ...

<you feel free to paste back in>

What say you to that?

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?

IMDB2.freeforums.net/thread/42182/ot-child-robots?q=vast
IMDB2.freeforums.net/thread/42182/ot-child-robots?q=bulk

And or course, any day (Mozilla) Smiling Face With Open Mouth & Closed Eyes

(Mozilla) Smiling Face With Open Mouth & Closed Eyes

Eva Yojimbo: 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.

Last Edit: May 1, 2018 7:20:23 GMT by cupcakes

Eva Yojimbo
Elite Member

@evayojimbo
Posts: 5,981

If you could be a God... May 2, 2018 6:11:42 GMT

Quote

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.

[