• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve, you've made very good points here, politely and forcefully, and I'd hate to see you baited into another suspension.

You've persuaded a few fence-sitters that you have a case, and given others some good material for reflection.

I'd say declare victory and end it here.
 
Steve has made serious accusations that CSICOP condone, justify and glorify pedophilia. But presented absolutely no evidence.

That's considered a "victory"? For whom?
 
CFLarsen said:
Steve has made serious accusations that CSICOP condone, justify and glorify pedophilia. But presented absolutely no evidence.

That's considered a "victory"? For whom?
Click to expand...
I'm not fan of Steve's but I can hardly say no evidence.
 
CFLarsen said:
Steve has made serious accusations that CSICOP condone, justify and glorify pedophilia. But presented absolutely no evidence.

That's considered a "victory"? For whom?
Click to expand...

Claiming he presented "no evidence" is an outright lie. He didn't sustain all his allegations, but he certainly had a slam-dunk with that Dutch pedophilia journal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mycroft said:
Claiming he presented "no evidence" is an outright lie. He didn't sustain all his allegations, but he certainly had a slam-dunk with that Dutch pedophilia journal.
Click to expand...

Steve Grenard has presented absolutely no evidence of his claim that CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia.

Do you dispute this, yes or no?
 
CFLarsen said:
Steve Grenard has presented absolutely no evidence of his claim that CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia.

Do you dispute this, yes or no?
Click to expand...

He has certainly provided evidence.

You may think his evidence is bad. You may believe it doesn't support all his conclusions. You may believe his evidence does not prove this one specific claim. All that may be true, but he has provided evidence, so claiming he hasn't is a lie. Refute his evidence, argue against it, bash it as being insignificant, but please stop lying. You won't get away with it.

[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mycroft said:
He has certainly provided evidence.

You may think his evidence is bad. You may believe it doesn't support all his conclusions. You may believe his evidence does not prove this one specific claim. All that may be true, but he has provided evidence, so claiming he hasn't is a lie. Refute his evidence, argue against it, bash it as being insignificant, but please stop lying. You won't get away with it.
Click to expand...

You won't get away with skipping around:

Do you believe that his evidence has proven that CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia?
 
Why is proof necessary here? Has this thread been moved to Mathematics while I was away?

You got evidence. Your rejection of it doesn't make it stop being evidence.
 
No, no. Tell us what would constitute proof here. I'm quite curious about the standards you're using.
 
Kullervo said:
No, no. Tell us what would constitute proof here. I'm quite curious about the standards you're using.
Click to expand...
Don't talk around the subject. What, exactly, has Steve provided evidence of? What "victory" are you talking about?
 
Mycroft said:
Claiming he presented "no evidence" is an outright lie. He didn't sustain all his allegations, but he certainly had a slam-dunk with that Dutch pedophilia journal.
Click to expand...
I think you are being over literal; given the context of Claus's post it is clear that he was meaning "no evidence for his claim".
 
See Mycroft's link for a good case study of the operative skeptical definition of declaring victory.

(as well as my non-response to what follows)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom