I'm following your example of skepticism CFLarsen. Skeptically I can't answer your question.
We now know that no one has to answer any questions, esspecially ones that would lead one to confront their position on an issue. Answering question, such as a Larsen List, isn't the skeptical thing to do. Rather one should skeptically ignore the questions. This is polite and civil IMO.
Let's see if you can live up to that.
Sure, it's a legal organization. I'd still tell my boss I'm not doing it. Principles should come before money.
In a perfect world, sure.
There's an old adage that goes, if it has a long hairy tail, four legs, a mane, and makes a "whinny" noise, it could be a four-legged scnarkleph from the planet Hammerskjold, but it's probably a horse. There's a pattern here. The fan describes the book as the voice of the repressed pedophile. Bullough contributed a section to that book. Neither of us have read it, so neither of our opinions is really supported by any direct "facts". My opinion is based on Bulloughs clear pattern of involvement with entities whose sole mission is to promote pedophilia. Your opinion is based on...?
...additional information about the whole body of his professional work. Bullough was clearly a capacity in various psychology subjects. Has he, in his own writings, ever published anything that would even indicate that he promotes pedophilia? No.
Would he, as a capacity, be asked to share his knowledge? Yes.
If those authors pointedly submit their articles to books like "Serial Murder Is NOT A Crime!" or "The Battle Against the Anti-Necrophile Hysteria", then yes, chances are they're probably promoting those things. Bullough certainly submitted some research articles regarding adults who sexually abuse children, but he ALSO wrote chapters for books whose purposes were specifically to promote pedophilia as a GOOD thing; and he consulted for ten years for a magazine with the same expressed purpose. Four legs, hairy tale, mane. Maybe it's a zebra...?
That assumes that if a scientist writes about something and doesn't express his opinion against it, he is automatically for it.
When you peruse PubMed, do the authors express their opinions for or against whatever it is they are studying?
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?
No, of course not.
So why NAMBLA, you ask next? I think I would have some difficulties with it, but if the job required it, I would do it. NAMBLA is a legal organization, and - AFAIK - are merely using their constitutional right to speak their mind. If they practiced what they preached, they wouldn't be legal.
But, we are not discussing me, but Bullough.
