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

[HarryKeogh]

What, exactly, is that new evidence?

No, not titles of articles. Evidence that the journal supports pedophilia.

So now you're the arbiter of what constitutes evidence or not. "Not titles" ha! Yeah, sure thing your Honor.

here's what I said:

At first look it appeared that this journal was 100% on the up-and-up. In light of the new evidence I've changed my mind.

The evidence that caused me to change my mind that this journal is not 100% on the up-and-up is contained in posts #183 and #184.

Did your opinion of the journal Pedaika change after you found out one of the authors in an issue was a convicted pedophile aand another is "pro-boy-love"? Mine did.

 

[HarryKeogh]

What, exactly, is that new evidence?

No, not titles of articles. Evidence that the journal supports pedophilia.

http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0019820.cfm

[FONT=Arial,Helv,Geneva]Rind and co-author Bauserman have been published in Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. Paidika’s statement of purpose, published in the inaugural issue, reads in part: “We intend to demonstrate that paedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience.”[/FONT]

Case closed.

 

[aerocontrols]

If everything Prometheus do is legal, how can they promote pedophilia? Pedophilia is illegal.

Would someone please explain to Claus the difference between promotion of an illegal act and commission of an illegal act?

Someone who doesn't think such an effort would be futile, that is.

 

[hgc]

Case closed.

Good god. I hope it is. I wonder now if Grenard will receive his props, or if we'll find out that it wasn't the argument, but the arguer, that mattered all along.

 

[Checkmite]

Case closed.

Indeed.

As the good doctor would say, "Take your time, say it loud..."

 

[Luke T.]

http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0019820.cfm



Case closed.

They didn't quote the worst part.

Another pro-pedophile source in Levine’s book is Vern Bullough of Cal State Northridge. A married grandfather, he has sued at least one person who accused him of being a pedophile. But it is an understandable mistake, because Bullough was a member of the editorial board of PAIDIKA, which used the first-person plural in its statement of purpose: “The starting point of PAIDIKA is necessarily our consciousness of ourselves as paedophiles. … [W]e intend to demonstrate that paedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience.” Why someone who doesn’t endorse that statement would sit on the PAIDIKA board is something Bullough needs to explain.

 

[Luke T.]

http://gideon.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1201&department=CWA

Paidika articles:

<snip>

The entire text of Edward Brongersma's early book 'In Defence of Boy Love'

http://www.paedosexualitaet.de/jour/Paidika.html

Edward Brongersma

(Cited by Levine on Page 66; Page 247, Note 47)

Cited subject: “Intergenerational sex … normal”

Dutch politician, b. 1911, d. 1998

Arrested and convicted for sex with 16-year-old boy; advocate of lower age of consent

"The World is Bursting with Adults, so I'm always Glad to See a
Little Girl" by Theo Sandfort

“There will be boys who will later recall with pleasure and appreciation the older partner and the friendship they shared. Sometimes this is evident in the human bond which remains after the erotic relationship has come to an end.”


— Theo Sandfort, “Boys on Their Contacts with Men,” 1987

 

[whitefork]

I for one appreciate the research that you guys have done here. I would not have had the stomach for it.

Very nasty and disturbing material.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Although I first brought John Money up earlier today, I did not know of his death until I decided to search for more information this evening and found that he has just died .....well Friday ...

Here is his obituary, among others:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Obit_Money.html

His obituaries so far fail to mention his Prometheus Kaspar Hauser book or the recommendation regarding affectionate stimulation of skin senses as a treatment.
--------------------------------------------

edited to add this link which contains more information regarding his views on pedophilia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

John Money was critical in the debate on pedophilia. He felt that both sexual researchers and the public do not make distinctions between affectional paedophilia and sadistic pedophilia, including infantophilia (occasionally referred to as nepiophilia), pedophilia and ephebophilia. For Money, affectional pedophilia is about love and not sex.

If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual...then I would not call it pathological in any way. [11] His view was that affectional pedophilia is caused by a surplus of parental love that became erotic, and is not a behavioral disorder. Rather, he felt that heterosexuality is another example of a societal and therefore, a superficial, ideological concept.

I leave it to the individual to decide whether or not they agree with Money's views.

 

[Luke T.]

Let's sum up:

[*]Despite earlier claims, there is no evidence that the Dutch journal Paidika is pro-pedophilia, or it its objective to "normalize" and decriminalize child molestation in society.

How we doing on this point now, Claus?

“The starting point of PAIDIKA is necessarily our consciousness of ourselves as paedophiles."

"[W]e intend to demonstrate that paedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience."

 

[Mycroft]

If everything Prometheus do is legal, you can't possibly criticize them.

Agree?

For the record, no. It's quite possible to criticize many legal actions.

 

[Darat]

OK now we know that this journal's intent and reason for existance is to promote peadaphilia how does this fact fit in with SteveGrenard claim that "...Prometheus' publishing program that includes books that glorify and condone pedophilia, bestiality and other degeneracies..."?

 

[CFLarsen]

Would someone please explain to Claus the difference between promotion of an illegal act and commission of an illegal act?

Someone who doesn't think such an effort would be futile, that is.

I am fully aware of the difference. You can promote pedophilia as long as you don't do it. Precisely the same way you can promote the legalization of illegal drugs, slavery, or whatever is your fancy.

Case closed.

Not so fast.

I acknowledge that it does seem as if Paedika has an agenda: I have some problems with that - I don't think a journal such as this should, but at least, they are honest about it. But how do they push it? They document it, and they present studies. I don't see any problems with that. That's their right, and I will defend that.

From the article:

So Bruce Rind of Temple University, along with co-authors Robert Bauserman and Phillip Tromovitch, made a case in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin for doing away with the term “child sexual abuse” in favor of “value-neutral” phrases like “adult-child sex” or “age-discrepant sexual relationships.” They even went so far as to say some boys benefit from having sex with men. But the strategy didn’t work as well for them as it did for the gay lobby.

The resulting national hue and cry, led by radio’s Dr. Laura Schlessinger, prompted the U.S. House of Representatives in 1999 to condemn a scientific paper for the first time — by a vote of 355-0. The APA later sent an apology to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, promising to tighten editorial security and prevent convicted pedophiles from using research like Rind’s to reduce their prison sentences.

I see huge problems here. Since when do politicians decide what is good science or not? This is no different than Creationism being put on equal terms with Evolution by the politicians.

So far, I don't see any reason to believe that they are right. Pedophilia is harmful, there are tons of studies that show that it is. It should be a crime, no doubt about that.

But we are treading on very thin ice if we reject scientific studies out of hand, merely because they tell us what we don't like to hear. I'm not defending their results, I am defending their right to do their research, as they see fit. Then, the scientific community - certainly not the politicians - can judge the findings and see where that takes us. And, boy(!), do they take them to task:

Not everyone in the scientific community has ignored problems with Rind’s research. Critics have called his work sloppy and said it crosses the line between scientific inquiry and advocacy.

Rind & Co. “used scientific data to stake out an advocacy position (in their APA article) . . . that went well beyond the data and could lead to it being misused by people for their own purposes,” said Mark Chaffin, editor of the journal Child Maltreatment.

“The pedophilia organizations jumped all over this and said, ‘See?’ ”

When asked how the 1998 Psychological Bulletin article slipped under the radar, APA spokeswoman Rhea Farberman said, “What APA publishes in its scholarly journals is based on a peer-review process — and that’s about its methodology, not its conclusions.”

But Dallam found seven flaws in Rind’s analysis of 59 previous studies on child sexual abuse — flaws that didn’t support the authors’ conclusions.

“Either the results were directly opposite what they reported, or equivocal and subject to interpretation, but none of them were as strong as they made them out to be,” Dallam said.

That's how this should be addressed: By evaluating the findings from a scientific point of view. Myths are buried by scientific findings. The body of scientific evidence is vastly in favor of pedophilia being harmful.

That's how science works, and we should acknowledge and respect that. But if we cast doubt on CSICOP for having a scientist, demonstrably is not a pedophile, offering his knowledge, are we any better than Creationists who want to obliterate the research they don't like?

Let's not compromise academic freedom because it deals with a subject we feel very uneasy about.

 

[CFLarsen]

Although I first brought John Money up earlier today, I did not know of his death until I decided to search for more information this evening and found that he has just died .....well Friday ...

Here is his obituary, among others:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Obit_Money.html

His obituaries so far fail to mention his Prometheus Kaspar Hauser book or the recommendation regarding affectionate stimulation of skin senses as a treatment.

--------------------------------------------

edited to add this link which contains more information regarding his views on pedophilia:

I leave it to the individual to decide whether or not they agree with Money's views.

Where do you see that Prometheus condones pedophilia in that "blurb"?

Where is your evidence that "skin senses" is a "code term used in the scientific study of pedophilia"?

If everything Prometheus do is legal, how can they promote pedophilia? Pedophilia is illegal.

If everything Prometheus do is legal, you can't possibly criticize them. Agree?

You have not been able to back up your claim with evidence. Your claim is unfounded. Your claim is baseless. Agree?

Why do you think a baseless claim carries any weight on a forum for skepticism? Why should we even consider your claim, if you are not able to back it up with evidence?

Do you think it would be a good idea to do your homework and have your evidence ready, before you post your accusations?

Can you please point to Paedika's own list of editors, instead of relying on the opinion of someone else who clearly has a very biased view on this?

Who draw those moral and ethic lines? You? If so, what do you base your decision on? Who gives you the right to determine what is right or wrong?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

If everything Prometheus do is legal, how can they promote pedophilia? Pedophilia is illegal.

Haven't you already explained that this isn't the case? For instacne you seem to acknowlegde that I can quite legally promote the legalisation of an illegal drug?

If everything Prometheus do is legal, you can't possibly criticize them. Agree?

I agree with Mycroft here - this is too much of a universal comment, there are many, many things that people and organisations do that are totally legal that I feel should be criticised. (For instance I believe many arms manufacturers may be legally selling weapons but that who and what they sell is wrong.)

...snip...

Who draw those moral and ethic lines? You? If so, what do you base your decision on? Who gives you the right to determine what is right or wrong?

I would say that everyone determines for themselves what is right or wrong. Is perhaps your point better better made with a question like "Why do you think you should be able to impose what you believe to be right or wrong on others?"

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I acknowledge that it does seem as if Paedika has an agenda: I have some problems with that - I don't think a journal such as this should, but at least, they are honest about it. But how do they push it? They document it, and they present studies. I don't see any problems with that. That's their right, and I will defend that.

...snip...

Let's not compromise academic freedom because it deals with a subject we feel very uneasy about.

You make a very good case for your point and so far I don't see anyone or any arguments being put forward that would disagree with your point.

I for one certainly agree that the journal should have the right to promote whatever they want, that scientist should be able to study anything and should be able to publish those findings (as long as it is within the confines of the law of course) and we shouldn't attempt to smear the character of someone just because they research into the more (to me) unsavoury aspects of human behaviour.

However saying that I cannot deny I would be biased against any positive findings regarding paedophilia by a scientist that promoted paedophilia. But of course ultimately those findings will stand or fall depending on whether or not they are good science.

 

[CFLarsen]

Haven't you already explained that this isn't the case? For instacne you seem to acknowlegde that I can quite legally promote the legalisation of an illegal drug?

Yes. I am asking Steve, because he constantly tries to make it look as it skeptics (CSICOP/Prometheus) condone pedophilia.

I would say that everyone determines for themselves what is right or wrong. Is perhaps your point better better made with a question like "Why do you think you should be able to impose what you believe to be right or wrong on others?"

That is what I meant. You put it better, though.

You make a very good case for your point and so far I don't see anyone or any arguments being put forward that would disagree with your point.

I do: CSICOP should be criticized for having Bullough on board, solely because Bullough - not a pedophile himself, nor is there any indication that he thinks pedophilia should be accepted - contributes to Paedika.

The mere fact that he is contributes to a journal on pedophilia, regardless of the nature of his contribution, is cause for criticism.

I for one certainly agree that the journal should have the right to promote whatever they want, that scientist should be able to study anything and should be able to publish those findings (as long as it is within the confines of the law of course) and we shouldn't attempt to smear the character of someone just because they research into the more (to me) unsavoury aspects of human behaviour.

However saying that I cannot deny I would be biased against any positive findings regarding paedophilia by a scientist that promoted paedophilia. But of course ultimately those findings will stand or fall depending on whether or not they are good science.

Of course it is hard to keep an unbiased mind, when we are dealing with a subject like this. But the question is, should we abandon our skepticism, just because we don't like the subject? That's what we are being tricked into doing here.

It comes down to this: Steve needs to show how Prometheus justify, condone and glorify pedophilia.

All else is a smoke screen.

 

[TragicMonkey]

However saying that I cannot deny I would be biased against any positive findings regarding paedophilia by a scientist that promoted paedophilia. But of course ultimately those findings will stand or fall depending on whether or not they are good science.

But is it a scientific question? I don't doubt that science can examine some aspects of pedophilia, but there's the whole cultural dimension, and the ethical one. Science can describe and explain phenomena, but it can't tell you whether they are right or wrong, or good or evil. It's simply not within the scope of science. Use science to study things, but ultimately the scientific conclusions in some things are just going to be arguing points in a different arena.

Which is why I don't think the existence of such a journal is a big deal. Even if it were full of excellent science (which I have to say I doubt) it wouldn't matter. Facts are perfect things for proving theories about geology. They aren't so great at proving ethical or philosophical stances.

 

[Walter Wayne]

I do: CSICOP should be criticized for having Bullough on board, solely because Bullough - not a pedophile himself, nor is there any indication that he thinks pedophilia should be accepted - contributes to Paedika.

I missed where this was established. Can you point it out to me?

Edited to add: fount it back a few pages. It say he finds he doesn't find pedophilia pathological, and should be kept to fantasies.

The mere fact that he is contributes to a journal on pedophilia, regardless of the nature of his contribution, is cause for criticism.

Show a few abstracts that show Paedika does publish finding which are counter to there stated purpose, or one from Bullough that is counter to it, and I would agree.

Edited to add: Show me articles from Paedika that support Bullough's point of view (that paedophila should remain limited to fantasy) and I would relent on the criticism, as it would evidence that his perhaps trying to put this more moderate viewpoint into the journal.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Not so fast.

Well, for me...yeah, so fast.

My point was to show the journal had a pro-pedophilia agenda. I showed that. My point was never "do they have the right to" and I don't want to turn this thread into a debate over a non-existing argument. In fact, my work is done here. This was a very distasteful topic but at least some new information was brought to light.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to clear my computer's cache before someone sees my browser's history and wonders what the hell I was doing.