[Moderated Thread] CFLarsen's and SteveGrenard's Pedophilia Thread

[CFLarsen]

Sorry. Three, of course.

 

[CFLarsen]

No. Being a consultant is by definition supporting.

Wrong. I've been a consultant for companies which goals I definitely not supported.

 

[Luke T.]

Wrong. I've been a consultant for companies which goals I definitely not supported.

We have a five letter word which begins with a W for people like that.

 

[CFLarsen]

We have a five letter word which begins with a W for people like that.

"Wuss..s"?

Nevertheless, there is nothing that indicates that Bullough supported pedophilia. His C.V. strongly suggests that he was there because he had a lot of knowledge about a wide range of sexuality issues.

 

[Q-Source]

Did you know that Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager are a married couple?. Underwager is the same who justifies paedophilia:

PAIDIKA: Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individuals?

RALPH UNDERWAGER: Certainly it is responsible. What I have been struck by as I have come to know more about and understand people who choose paedophilia is that they let themselves be too much defined by other people. That is usually an essentially negative definition. Paedophiles spend a lot of time and energy defending their choice. I don't think that a paedophile needs to do that. Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: "This closeness is possible for me within the choices that I've made."
Paedophiles are too defensive. They go around saying, "You people out there are saying that what I choose is bad, that it's no good. You're putting me in prison, you're doing all these terrible things to me. I have to define my love as being in some way or other illicit." What I think is that paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness, they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will." They have the right to make these statements for themselves as personal choices. Now whether or not they can persuade other people they are right is another matter (laughs). http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2.html

Well they used to appear as expert witnesses in cases where paedophiles walked free. Obviously their “objective” opinion helped to justify some of these criminal’s actions.

The nasty thing is that both, Wakefield and Underwager were founding advisors of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF). . http://www.fmsfonline.org/advboard.html
The FMSF is fully supported by CSICOP and James Randi is a board member. In fact Wakefield is still a board member. Check here http://www.fmsfonline.org/advboard.html#Hollida Wakefield


As some of us know the FMSF claims that some cases reported by children and adults that were sexually abused should also be subjected to the golden skeptic rule “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence:

At the same time, the Advisory Board has been unified by an adherence to the fundamental notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They are in agreement that external corroboration is necessary in order to know the truth or falsity of a memory. They are all concerned about possible harm to patients and families through the use of techniques that increase the risk of suggestion.

This can be found in the same link provided above.

I suppose if a child says that he was sexually abused by an adult, he must provide evidence or shut up. He must be imagining things. Before knowing this, I was supported of the FMSF but knowing that Underwager and Wakefield are founding members I definitely have changed my views about the real purpose of this foundation.

 

[Q-Source]

Does James Randi know who's agenda he is supporting?

or as in Paul Kurtz's case, should we believe that Randi ignores this?

 

[CFLarsen]

Did you know that Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager are a married couple?. Underwager is the same who justifies paedophilia:

Where do you read that he justifies paedophilia?

Well they used to appear as expert witnesses in cases where paedophiles walked free. Obviously their “objective” opinion helped to justify some of these criminal’s actions.

What cases are you talking about? How do you know they were paedophiles?

The nasty thing is that both, Wakefield and Underwager were founding advisors of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF). . http://www.fmsfonline.org/advboard.html
The FMSF is fully supported by CSICOP and James Randi is a board member. In fact Wakefield is still a board member. Check here http://www.fmsfonline.org/advboard.html#Hollida Wakefield

As some of us know the FMSF claims that some cases reported by children and adults that were sexually abused should also be subjected to the golden skeptic rule “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence:

This can be found in the same link provided above.

I suppose if a child says that he was sexually abused by an adult, he must provide evidence or shut up. He must be imagining things.

Whoa, that's not what False Memory Syndrome is about. FMS is about planting false memories, typically by hypnosis or other suggestive methods.

Does James Randi know who's agenda he is supporting?

Why don't you email him and ask?

or as in Paul Kurtz's case, should we believe that Randi ignores this?

....what case is that?

 

[Q-Source]

Why don't you email him and ask?

I will, just in case he is not aware that Hollida Wakefield is still a board member of the FMSF. I'll send him the link with the interview she gave with her husband Underwager.

The rest of your post is your classical double standard trolling. So I'll ignore it.

 

[CFLarsen]

The rest of your post is your classical double standard trolling. So I'll ignore it.

Where do you read that he justifies paedophilia?

What cases are you talking about?

How do you know they were paedophiles?

What case is the Paul Kurtz case?

 

[Checkmite]

False Memory Syndrome is a legitimate problem. There have been all kinds of instances in the past; what's on trial in such a case is not the victim's claim of abuse, it's where that claim originated. If somebody wakes from a hypnotic therapy session "suddenly" remembering all kinds of abuse they hadn't even thought about suspecting previously, there could be a problem. Hypnotism is notoriously unreliable. The FMSF testifies only in cases where it's probable that a victim's spontaneous recollection of being abused by every adult in an entire neighborhood (for a not-unrealistic example) may have been planted by a negligent therapist.

So I have no problems with the FMSF.

On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure how a person can remain on an editorial board of a pro-pedophilic magazine for TEN YEARS and "disagree" with the magazine's position. This wasn't some new out-of-school journalist who needed a job and hitched on with a political rag; this is someone who's advanced in his career and free to choose who he will consult for. The fact that his website indicates he's authored chapters for books like "Loving Boys, Vol 1" (for example) also doesn't seem to lend credence to the "consulted for but didn't agree with" argument.

Look, I understand that a person who researches sex treads dangerous ground, and anybody who publishes anything indicating that "not every single child abuse victim becomes pathological" is bound to receive all kinds of scorn. It's happened before. But there's a difference between Lind, for instance, and a guy who works on an adamantly pro-pedophile magazine's editorial board for ten years, while contributing text to books like "Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Boy Love".

This is distressing.

 

[CFLarsen]

Josh,

Do you understand the difference between describing something and supporting something?

 

[Checkmite]

Josh,

Do you understand the difference between describing something and supporting something?

Yes; but the mission of Paidika, for instance, isn't to "describe" pedophilia; it's to actively promote its normalization. The sorts of books Bullough contributed to are geared toward the same purpose. In an Amazon user review about the "Loving Boys" book, it is described by an apparent fan in glowing terms.

It is worth buying if you are open-minded and not consumed by the conventional socio-medical-religious perspective that man-boy love is harmful to minors. This book presents the perspective of the other side-the non-conformists, the very people that suffer as a result of social rejection and proscription.

The book isn't some scholarly journal, it's a valentine for pedophiles.

It is POSSIBLE that Bullough's articles are all completely innocent. But that particular claim is beginning to sound "extraordinary", if you ask me.

 

[Mycroft]

Does that mean that he supported pedophilia?

At this point I would have to say the evidence suggests so.

Gee, I dunno. Who sets the standards, Mycroft? You?

Mine? Sure, why not? It beats the idea that no standards can be applied. Of course, if you want to suggest a different standard, feel free.

 

[CFLarsen]

At this point I would have to say the evidence suggests so.

Do you understand the difference between describing something and supporting something?

Mine? Sure, why not? It beats the idea that no standards can be applied. Of course, if you want to suggest a different standard, feel free.

Who said anything about no standards can be applied? I'm not going to discuss your idiotic strawmen.

Yes; but the mission of Paidika, for instance, isn't to "describe" pedophilia; it's to actively promote its normalization.

I was talking about Bullough.

The sorts of books Bullough contributed to are geared toward the same purpose. In an Amazon user review about the "Loving Boys" book, it is described by an apparent fan in glowing terms.

Does Bullough promote pedophilia in that book, or does the fan describe him as doing that?

The book isn't some scholarly journal, it's a valentine for pedophiles.

It is POSSIBLE that Bullough's articles are all completely innocent. But that particular claim is beginning to sound "extraordinary", if you ask me.

Why on Earth would you think that? The psychological/psychiatric journals are full of articles written by psychologers/psychiatrists about necrophiliacs, sociopaths, serial killers, you name it. Are those authors also promoting these things?

 

[HarryKeogh]

Wrong. I've been a consultant for companies which goals I definitely not supported.

Would you do IT consulting work for NAMBLA?

 

[Jocko]

Wrong. I've been a consultant for companies which goals I definitely not supported.

Then you are/were a sh*tty consultant. Period.

 

[CFLarsen]

Would you do IT consulting work for NAMBLA?

It's not a question of wanting to. If my job required me to do it, I would do it. I don't pick and choose my assignments.

As I understand it, it's a legal organization?

 

[LeFevre]

Where do you read that he justifies paedophilia?

What cases are you talking about?

How do you know they were paedophiles?

What case is the Paul Kurtz case?

As by your skeptical example, Q-Source doesn't need or have to answer questions, easy or hard questions. This is polite and civil IMO.

 

[CFLarsen]

As by your skeptical example, Q-Source doesn't need or have to answer questions, easy or hard questions. This is polite and civil IMO.

In which case, you cannot criticize me for it either.

Correct?

 

[Grammatron]

It's not a question of wanting to. If my job required me to do it, I would do it. I don't pick and choose my assignments.

As I understand it, it's a legal organization?

Echoing your comments from another thread, a government organization that put people in consentration camps based on their religion or race was legal at one time in certain countries, would you provide consulting for it?