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

[CFLarsen]

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?

"His entire life"? Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.

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.

Absolutely not. In that case, you will have to explain my year-long presence on the TVTalkshows forum for John Edward as sharing the same goals as his believers.

What about the believers who are here on this forum for a long time? Do they share the same goals as Randi?

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

Ah, the old "NO DIRECT QUOTE!" cop-out...

 

[Darat]

...snip...

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.

I understand your point and it has some merit however remember some "famous skeptics" have made a slightly different decision - I believe Dawkins for example will not take part in public debates with creationists because he thinks it adds credibility to their arguments.

 

[CFLarsen]

I understand your point and it has some merit however remember some "famous skeptics" have made a slightly different decision - I believe Dawkins for example will not take part in public debates with creationists because he thinks it adds credibility to their arguments.

Yet, he goes up against fundamentalist Muslims and Christians.

 

[Mycroft]

"His entire life"? Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.

Isn't the guy dead now? I should have said "the rest of his life" but it doesn't substantially change the point. He lived for many years after his time with Paidika, and never realized what it was? Not very likely .

Absolutely not. In that case, you will have to explain my year-long presence on the TVTalkshows forum for John Edward as sharing the same goals as his believers.

Being on the John Edward talk forum is very different from being a paid consultant for the show.

What about the believers who are here on this forum for a long time? Do they share the same goals as Randi?

Again, they are not paid associates of Randi, contributing to the weekly commentaries, etc.

 

[Mycroft]

Ah, the old "NO DIRECT QUOTE!" cop-out...

In none of the quotes you provide is Steve Grenard claiming CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia. Neither by inference nor direct statement. The quotes you provide show him questioning some books published by Promethius Publishing, and linking one CSICOP fellow to a pro-Pedophilia magazine. None of the quotes you provide actually show him saying or implying that CSICOP condones pedophilia.

 

[CFLarsen]

In none of the quotes you provide is Steve Grenard claiming CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia. Neither by inference nor direct statement. The quotes you provide show him questioning some books published by Promethius Publishing, and linking one CSICOP fellow to a pro-Pedophilia magazine. None of the quotes you provide actually show him saying or implying that CSICOP condones pedophilia.

Linking to CSICOP is not inference? What is inference, then?

Isn't the guy dead now? I should have said "the rest of his life" but it doesn't substantially change the point. He lived for many years after his time with Paidika, and never realized what it was? Not very likely.

You misrepresent the facts, but you are still right? Of course it changes the point substantially.

Being on the John Edward talk forum is very different from being a paid consultant for the show.

Again, they are not paid associates of Randi, contributing to the weekly commentaries, etc.

Ah, it's the money? Screw how they argue, screw what they condone. If they get paid, they automatically support the goal.

I've received money from writing articles for newspapers I certainly didn't agree with. Does that mean I support the goals of the newspapers? Of course not.

Don't be naive, Mycroft.

 

[Darat]

In none of the quotes you provide is Steve Grenard claiming CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia. Neither by inference nor direct statement. The quotes you provide show him questioning some books published by Promethius Publishing, and linking one CSICOP fellow to a pro-Pedophilia magazine. None of the quotes you provide actually show him saying or implying that CSICOP condones pedophilia.

This is a matter of personal interpretation. For instance I agree with Claus's interpretation that from Steve's posts he is applying the same criticisms to CSICOP as he does to Prometheus books. However we are arguing about the interpretation of a fellow Member's words. The easiest solution to this is to seek the evidence. I.e.


To SteveG - can you confirm that you do not believe that "that CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia." in any way shape or form?

I'll also PM him the link to this post.

 

[Mycroft]

Linking to CSICOP is not inference? What is inference, then?

It is not a claim that CSICOP supports or condones pedophilia.

You misrepresent the facts, but you are still right? Of course it changes the point substantially.

No one is fooled by your drama. The fact remainst he was associated with the magazine for ten years, then lived out the remainder of his life. It's simply not credable, as has been suggested, that during all that time he remained ignorant of the nature of the magazine.

Ah, it's the money? Screw how they argue, screw what they condone. If they get paid, they automatically support the goal.

Posting on someone's message board does not automatically imply that you support their goals or that they support you. Being a paid member of their staff does, yes.

I've received money from writing articles for newspapers I certainly didn't agree with. Does that mean I support the goals of the newspapers? Of course not.

Were any of these newspapers trying to enact radical yet extremely unpopular social changes such as making pedophilia acceptable?

Don't be naive, Mycroft.

Please, let's not get personal.

 

[CFLarsen]

It is not a claim that CSICOP supports or condones pedophilia.

I didn't ask what you thought weren't an inference. I asked you what an inference was.

PEDOPHILIA => PAIDIKA => BULLOUGH => CSICOP.

Why isn't that an inference?

No one is fooled by your drama.

It's not "drama" to point out you are misrepresenting the facts.

The fact remainst he was associated with the magazine for ten years, then lived out the remainder of his life. It's simply not credable, as has been suggested, that during all that time he remained ignorant of the nature of the magazine.

Who said he was? I'm sure he was very aware of the nature of the magazine. Does that mean he condoned its goals? Of course not.

Posting on someone's message board does not automatically imply that you support their goals or that they support you. Being a paid member of their staff does, yes.

Were any of these newspapers trying to enact radical yet extremely unpopular social changes such as making pedophilia acceptable?

Now they have to enact radical yet extremely unpopular social changes, too? You keep moving the goalposts, Mycroft.

Has Paidika done anything illegal?

Do you think it is OK for Shermer to have Schlessinger on the board?

What other radical yet extremely unpopular social changes should skeptics stay away from? Evolution? That's as radical and unpopular as it gets.

Please, let's not get personal.

It's not personal to point out that you are very naive. Have you never done anything for money you didn't like, but felt was necessary?

 

[Checkmite]

Bullough was not some occasional author, some Phil Plait they "brought on the show" once or twice a year to hear his "alternative viewpoint" so they wouldn't look so slanted. He was a regular staff member of the magazine for ten solid years.

 

[CFLarsen]

Bullough was not some occasional author, some Phil Plait they "brought on the show" once or twice a year to hear his "alternative viewpoint" so they wouldn't look so slanted. He was a regular staff member of the magazine for ten solid years.

How was Bullough "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?

Read post #335 and tell me what you think.

 

[Mycroft]

I didn't ask what you thought weren't an inference. I asked you what an inference was.

PEDOPHILIA => PAIDIKA => BULLOUGH => CSICOP.

Why isn't that an inference?

Because in only two more steps you can link Paidika to Kevin Bacon. Your chain does not infer that CSICOP supports pedophilia.

It's not "drama" to point out you are misrepresenting the facts.

It is when you try to make an issue of my having said "all his life" rather than "the rest of his life." It doesn't invalidate my point, and fixating on this only serves as a distraction. Move forward, please.

Who said he was?...

Darat suggested it, unless I misunderstood him.

Now they have to enact radical yet extremely unpopular social changes, too? You keep moving the goalposts, Mycroft.

There are many differences between participating in a public forum and being an editor of a journal.

Has Paidika done anything illegal?

Irrelevent. Nobody claims their actions are illegal.

Do you think it is OK for Shermer to have Schlessinger on the board?

I need more context. Who is Schlessinger?

What other radical yet extremely unpopular social changes should skeptics stay away from? Evolution? That's as radical and unpopular as it gets.

Red herring. The issue is pedophilia.

It's not personal to point out that you are very naive. Have you never done anything for money you didn't like, but felt was necessary?

I can safely say I would not promote pedophilia for money.

 

[Darat]

This is a matter of personal interpretation. For instance I agree with Claus's interpretation that from Steve's posts he is applying the same criticisms to CSICOP as he does to Prometheus books. However we are arguing about the interpretation of a fellow Member's words. The easiest solution to this is to seek the evidence. I.e.


To SteveG - can you confirm that you do not believe that "that CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia." in any way shape or form?

I'll also PM him the link to this post.

Steve answered my PM with a detailed response, I asked him for permission to post parts of his PM response here but he said no as he is not participating in this thread any longer but gave me permission to mention the content of his PM.

He has satisfied me that he did not mean to imply in any way shape or form "that CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia".

 

[CFLarsen]

Because in only two more steps you can link Paidika to Kevin Bacon. Your chain does not infer that CSICOP supports pedophilia.

It isn't my chain. It is Steve's.

Why isn't it an inference? Where does the link break? Does CSICOP not support Bullough? Does Bullough not promote pedophilia?

It is when you try to make an issue of my having said "all his life" rather than "the rest of his life." It doesn't invalidate my point, and fixating on this only serves as a distraction. Move forward, please.

Excuse me for "making an issue" out of your misrepresentations.

Darat suggested it, unless I misunderstood him.

Where did he suggest it?

There are many differences between participating in a public forum and being an editor of a journal.

Then list all the conditions, please, so we know what you are talking about.

Irrelevent. Nobody claims their actions are illegal.

Nothing illegal, then. Why are you critical of them, then?

I need more context. Who is Schlessinger?

I already mentioned her, in post #335: Laura Schlessinger. "Dr. Laura".

Red herring. The issue is pedophilia.

Is pedophilia the only issue you feel skeptics should stay away from?

I can safely say I would not promote pedophilia for money.

Where has Bullough promoted pedophilia? Can you point to anything he has written or said?

Steve answered my PM with a detailed response, I asked him for permission to post parts of his PM response here but he said no as he is not participating in this thread any longer but gave me permission to mention the content of his PM.

He has satisfied me that he did not mean to imply in any way shape or form "that CSICOP condones, justifies and glorifies pedophilia".

I wonder why he has been so busy doing just that for a long time now. But, I guess this means he will never try to use this cheap trick again.

 

[Mycroft]

It isn't my chain. It is Steve's.

Why isn't it an inference? Where does the link break? Does CSICOP not support Bullough? Does Bullough not promote pedophilia?



Excuse me for "making an issue" out of your misrepresentations.



Where did he suggest it?



Then list all the conditions, please, so we know what you are talking about.



Nothing illegal, then. Why are you critical of them, then?



I already mentioned her, in post #335: Laura Schlessinger. "Dr. Laura".



Is pedophilia the only issue you feel skeptics should stay away from?



Where has Bullough promoted pedophilia? Can you point to anything he has written or said?



I wonder why he has been so busy doing just that for a long time now. But, I guess this means he will never try to use this cheap trick again.

Dude, you already lost this argument back in this post.

 

[hgc]

Dude, you already lost this argument back in this post.

Unless you subscribe to the last man standing theory of winning.

 

[CFLarsen]

Dude, you already lost this argument back in this post.

• Why isn't "PEDOPHILIA => PAIDIKA => BULLOUGH => CSICOP" an inference? Where does the link break? Does CSICOP not support Bullough? Does Bullough not promote pedophilia?
  
• Where did Darat suggest Bullough remained ignorant of the nature of the magazine?
  
• Please list all the conditions, so we know what you are talking about.
  
• If Paidika hasn't done anything illegal, why are you critical of them?
  
• Do you think it is OK for Shermer to have Schlessinger on the board?
  
• Is pedophilia the only issue you feel skeptics should stay away from?
  
• Where has Bullough promoted pedophilia? Can you point to anything he has written or said?

 

[Checkmite]

Where has Bullough promoted pedophilia? Can you point to anything he has written or said?

You reject the idea that helping run a magazine whose goal is to normalize pedophilia for ten years means one supports that magazine's goals. Well, the rest of us have no problem accepting that fact. It seems, on this particular point, you'll just have to continue plugging your ears with your fingers and singing "LALALALALALA".

People aren't just defined by their words; they're also defined by their actions. Bullough's actions say enough. Bullough could've published his scientific reports and consulted with any sexology journal, anywhere in the world. He pointedly singled out a relatively obscure pro-pedophilia rag and remained on its active staff for a decade.

 

[CFLarsen]

You reject the idea that helping run a magazine whose goal is to normalize pedophilia for ten years means one supports that magazine's goals. Well, the rest of us have no problem accepting that fact. It seems, on this particular point, you'll just have to continue plugging your ears with your fingers and singing "LALALALALALA".

People aren't just defined by their words; they're also defined by their actions. Bullough's actions say enough. Bullough could've published his scientific reports and consulted with any sexology journal, anywhere in the world. He pointedly singled out a relatively obscure pro-pedophilia rag and remained on its active staff for a decade.

Is pedophilia the only thing skeptics should avoid?