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

[CFLarsen]

See Mycroft's link for a good case study of the operative skeptical definition of declaring victory.

I didn't ask you for the definition, but what the victory was.

What, exactly, has Steve provided evidence of?

 

[Mycroft]

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".

Which claim is that, exactly? Has Steve Grenard actually said, as Claus claims, that CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia? If so, I haven't seen it.

 

[Mycroft]

Thank you.

So, what do you think he has proved?

You're moving the goalposts. Your initial claim was that SG had provided no evidence. Are you now conceding that you were wrong?

 

[CFLarsen]

Which claim is that, exactly? Has Steve Grenard actually said, as Claus claims, that CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia? If so, I haven't seen it.

Why don't you read the thread?

Why don't you tell the truth Claws ...that you call me that because I am outspokenly opposed to that part of Prometheus' publishing program that includes books that glorify and condone pedophilia, bestiality and other degeneracies? And that sadly this publisher is owned by one of the world's top skeptics and also publishes skeptical books...eh?

Fair enough. Here are the titles of Promtheus Books. These can be linked only by going to their website since they do not seem to have their own URLs for the descriptions but the list below represents a linkthat will take you to a description of the book. I am not saying all of these are objectionnable, pornographic or justifying an illegal behavior such as pedophilia but some of them do. Some, such as the porno video catalogue, is just a catalogue of trashy videos. Such publications by this, of all publishers, is just pathetic.

No, not "because" ... it just so happens that he was at SUNY-Buffalo where CSICOP and Prometheus is headquarterd and where the head of CSICOP also works. His CV clearly details both his Paidika role and his Prometheus role.
Prometheus, is of course, a respected publisher of skeptical books by Randi and Shermer among others. The company was founded and I guess is still owned by Paul Kurtz who also co-founded CSICOP. I understand one or more of his grown children now run the company on a day to day basis.

This doesn't make Prometheus "pedophile porn peddlers." A few of the books they published which were listed above makes them involved in paedophilia (at least one title but the theme is buried in other titles) and in pornography (see multi-volume Guide to pornographic videos which includes titles of kiddie porn type).

I am sorry but I still don't see why it is so difficult to understand why myself and others would be taken aback by the fact that such an important publisher of both skeptical, historical, scientific and philosophical works would publish sexual autobiographies describing the joys of having sexual relations with animals or books which are used by NAMBLA to justify their position or why the late editor of many of these titles happened to spend ten years as a member of the editorial board of a magazine that justifies paedophilia and whose objective is to "normalize" and decriminalize child molestation in society.

Prometheus is neither a cable company, hotel room or in theory any part of the adult entertainment industry so that comparison is fallacious. They present themselves as a scholarly publishing company and there is no objection to scholarly monograph publication on paedophilia or any other behavior, and they have done that but they have crossed way beyond that line when you consider some of the titles which you can review for yourselves by clicking on each of the titles listed for a brief review of the subject matter. The video porn catalogue has got to be the most blatant example. Is the cognitive dissonance displayed by Larsen, Keogh or RandFan so great they are incapable of waking up and smelling the stink? Sure if Prometheus Publishing were a person it would be a skeptical icon but idol worship should've been thrown out a long time ago and people realize that even in the best of all worlds even idols are not perfect.

So that pretty much sums up my position and I don't know what more I can do to provide evidence of both the existence of the publications or the involvement of the late and otherwise highly distinguished Professor Bullough
in the Paidika movement. He was involved with them officially for a decade, between 1988 and 1998 according to his own c.v.

For that reason I am labeled a prude by Larsen ... and for the reasons above I am proud of it.

I would be happy to buy into Prometheus' or CSICOPS ignorance on that matter if it were not for the existence of that very very long list of titles and their ongoing video porn catalogue project. Remember that CSICOP and Prometheus are linked through the boss of both, Paul Kurtz.

Correction to above: Prof. Bullough was not the editor of Paidika, he was an editorial consultant and was proud enough of this fact to include it on his continuously updated c.v. which is available on the web.

I have presented the evidence asked for.

• The list of suspect Prometheus publications.
• The Paidika connection to the late Prof. Bullough
• The CSCIOP connection to the late Prof. Bullough
• The Prometheus/CSICOP connection.
• The Prometheus connection to Prof. Bullough

You can dress all this up anyway you want. I have done what I was goaded into doing by Mr. Larsen so you can thank him for that.Not for setting out doing what I wanted to do which is without any truth save that now it is Larsen's new lament.


I was clearly not interested in pursuing this and resisted doing so as long as I could. Paranoia, a highly destructive behavior, on the part of some will subscribe otherwise. I am done with this discussion and others can make up their mind in any fashion they want. Thank you
all for a lively discussion of the issues.

You're moving the goalposts. Your initial claim was that SG had provided no evidence. Are you now conceding that you were wrong?

No, I asked what you think Steve has proved.

 

[Checkmite]

Steve, with the help of a few others here, has proven that a CSICOP fellow was for no less than ten years a staff member of an openly and self-styled pro-pedophilic periodical.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve, with the help of a few others here, has proven that a CSICOP fellow was for no less than ten years a staff member of an openly and self-styled pro-pedophilic periodical.

....and?

 

[Checkmite]

And what?

 

[Mycroft]

Why don't you read the thread?

In fact I have read the thread. Which is why I'm amazed that in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1771267#post1771267

You make the completely false claim that Steve Grenard claims:

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

Do you dispute this, yes or no?

I don’t see it. In none of those quote boxes you provide is Steve making any claim that CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia. The only claims he makes are about the published material of Prometheus Books, owned by a founder of CSICOP, and the links between Bullough and the pro-pedophilia journal Paidika.

It is you who is not substantiating your claims against Steve.

 

[CFLarsen]

And what?

This is not a Great Revelation. How is this relevant to CSICOP? Bullough is not pro-pedophilia, he offers his knowledge. Does that taint CSICOP's reputation?

I don’t see it.

OK, you don't see it. I didn't think you would.

 

[Checkmite]

This is not a Great Revelation. How is this relevant to CSICOP? Bullough is not pro-pedophilia, he offers his knowledge. Does that taint CSICOP's reputation?

Hasn't it? That this discussion ever took place is proof that Bullough's support of this "scholarly journal" has certainly soiled his own reputation, and that amongst a certain set (which holds sway with the public), this in turn reflects badly on CSICOP. Isn't this readily apparent?

 

[CFLarsen]

Hasn't it? That this discussion ever took place is proof that Bullough's support of this "scholarly journal" has certainly soiled his own reputation, and that amongst a certain set (which holds sway with the public), this in turn reflects badly on CSICOP. Isn't this readily apparent?

How is he "supporting" it? By offering his knowledge?

If I know something about, say, mediumship, I should not be a consulting editor for a magazine on mediumship, because it will soil my own reputation?

 

[Darat]

How is he "supporting" it? By offering his knowledge?

If I know something about, say, mediumship, I should not be a consulting editor for a magazine on mediumship, because it will soil my own reputation?

In my opinion the answer would be yes. As a for instance I would question if Randi was to be a consulting editor of a pro-psychic journal. But I wouldn't find it at all strange if he occasionally had articles published in that magazine or they even occasionally employed him as a consultant.

 

[Mycroft]

OK, you don't see it. I didn't think you would.

That's not a mere difference of opinion. Steve never said CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia. You're wrong.

 

[Mycroft]

If I know something about, say, mediumship, I should not be a consulting editor for a magazine on mediumship, because it will soil my own reputation?

If the purpose of the magazine were to promote mediumship then they wouldn't want you as a consulting editor unless you did too.

 

[CFLarsen]

In my opinion the answer would be yes. As a for instance I would question if Randi was to be a consulting editor of a pro-psychic journal. But I wouldn't find it at all strange if he occasionally had articles published in that magazine or they even occasionally employed him as a consultant.

The key issue here - both in this scenario and with Bullough - is that someone has knowledge about a subject. Shouldn't knowledge be spread to as many people as possible? Do we only tell those we agree with what we know? Shouldn't we tell those we don't agree with what we know? Isn't that why some of us go to Woo boards, to argue our case? Isn't that why we post here on this forum? We don't preach to the choir, we share our knowledge with the purpose of enlightening the audience.

There is no evidence that Vern Bullough was in favor of pedophilia. There is ample evidence that he had a tremendous knowledge of pedophilia and other sexual preferences. As a scientist, isn't he compelled to share his knowledge, especially with those he disagree with? Isn't that what science is all about? Throwing your findings to the lions? Aren't your best friends in science your harshest critics?

Why does Phil Plait go up against Bill Kaysing or Bart Siebrel on Coast to Coast? Phil knows that the vast majority of listeners won't agree with him. Why does Randi go up against anyone, no matter where? Why does Shermer debate creationists where he knows he is up against an audience that is very much against him? Why does Shermer include Laura Schlessinger on the board of advisors for Skeptic Magazine?

Because they know that if they want their ideas to reach the public, they have to go where the public is.

Oh, there's a difference between sharing knowledge about UFOs and sharing knowledge about pedophilia? Is it because the subject is pedophilia? Yeah, let's shun that particular subject, especially if we have knowledge in this area. If we do know something, we should never share it with anyone. We must keep it very, very secret. Gee, why don't we just stop talking about anything we feel uncomfortable about? Why don't we just hush up anything we don't like? Don't ask, don't tell. Secrecy! Suppression! That's the best way!

Sure.

If the purpose of the magazine were to promote mediumship then they wouldn't want you as a consulting editor unless you did too.

But if they did?

 

[CFLarsen]

That's not a mere difference of opinion. Steve never said CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia. You're wrong.

Read post #243.

 

[Darat]

If the purpose of the magazine were to promote mediumship then they wouldn't want you as a consulting editor unless you did too.

This I disagree with, from the viewpoint of a pro-something journal getting someone known to be a critic of the something can be very good PR and lend via association credibility to the journal.

In the example of Bullough that we've examined in this thread I could see how the pro-paedophilia journal would consider it good to get someone with with a good academic record onto their "editor's list". (Just as a totally personal view and nothing but specualtion) I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there was a conscious effort to blindside Bullough to keep him on board as a "consulting editor".

 

[CFLarsen]

This I disagree with, from the viewpoint of a pro-something journal getting someone known to be a critic of the something can be very good PR and lend via association credibility to the journal.

In the example of Bullough that we've examined in this thread I could see how the pro-paedophilia journal would consider it good to get someone with with a good academic record onto their "editor's list". (Just as a totally personal view and nothing but specualtion) I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there was a conscious effort to blindside Bullough to keep him on board as a "consulting editor".

Sometimes, scientists are a little tooo naive for their own good, so it is possible that Bullough was indeed blindsided. But even if he were, that shouldn't be taken as his support of pedophilia.

 

[Mycroft]

This I disagree with, from the viewpoint of a pro-something journal getting someone known to be a critic of the something can be very good PR and lend via association credibility to the journal.

In the example of Bullough that we've examined in this thread I could see how the pro-paedophilia journal would consider it good to get someone with with a good academic record onto their "editor's list". (Just as a totally personal view and nothing but specualtion) I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there was a conscious effort to blindside Bullough to keep him on board as a "consulting editor".

Do you think this is really likely? Was Bullough "blindsided" for his entire life? He never discovered the real purpose of this magazine and denounced it? Bullough never had second thoughs about lending his credibility to a pro-pedophilia magazine?

I'm sorry, but you can make up all sorts of fantasy scenarios, but by Occams Razor, the simplest explanation is that he had a ten-year relationship with Paidika (sp?) because he shared the same goals.

 

[Mycroft]

Read post #243.

I did. Nowhere in that post is Steve quoted as saying CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia. You're still wrong and failing miserably to provide evidence for this claim.