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

[Checkmite]

Is pedophilia the only thing skeptics should avoid?

Skeptics don't need to "avoid" any topic. Nor do scientists; articles about child sexual abuse and pedophilia are posted all the time in respectable medical journals. But if a "skeptic" decides to take a side and actively support the normalization of pedophilia, he will not be immune from the resulting (and in my opinion not unwarranted) intense scrutiny just because he happens to be a prominent member of a skeptic organization, or has in the past written neutral articles on the matter.

 

[Mycroft]

[*]Why isn't "PEDOPHILIA => PAIDIKA => BULLOUGH => CSICOP" an inference? Where does the link break? Does CSICOP not support Bullough? Does Bullough not promote pedophilia?

You and I have already come to an agreement on this issue here so unless you wish to renounce your own words, I see no reason to revisit the issue again.

[*]Where did Darat suggest Bullough remained ignorant of the nature of the magazine?

I don’t believe this is important, so I will decline to search for the specific post that led me to that opinion.

ETA: On looking for something else, I see that Darat made this speculation in post # 337 of this thread. You acknowledged this in post #338.

[*]Please list all the conditions, so we know what you are talking about.

I don’t see this as a productive use of my time, so if you have issue with my assertion that visiting a forum is not the same as working directly for an organization, you may explain what your objection is, and I will do my best to answer it.

[*]If Paidika hasn't done anything illegal, why are you critical of them?

That issue has already been addressed here, here and here. The answer has not changed, so I see no point in repeating myself.

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

Don’t know, don’t care. That’s outside the scope of our discussion.

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

I never claimed skeptics should stay away from the issue of pedophilia. I think staying away from supporting pedophilia is good advice for anyone.

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

Again, that’s outside the scope of our discussion. The issues between us are if Steve had provided evidence of his claims (which he has, regardless of the conclusions you’re willing to draw from it) and if his claims included the assertion that CSICOP supports/condones pedophilia. Now if you want to provide evidence that Bullough does not support/condone pedophilia despite his ten year association with a pro-pedophilia publication, now would be a good time for you to do some work on your own and come up with some compelling information, but the time when you can just sit back and make demands of others is long past.

 

[CFLarsen]

You and I have already come to an agreement on this issue here so unless you wish to renounce your own words, I see no reason to revisit the issue again.

I asked you a question: Why isn't "PEDOPHILIA => PAIDIKA => BULLOUGH => CSICOP" an inference? Where does the link break? Does CSICOP not support Bullough? Does Bullough not promote pedophilia?

I don’t believe this is important, so I will decline to search for the specific post that led me to that opinion.

ETA: On looking for something else, I see that Darat made this speculation in post # 337 of this thread. You acknowledged this in post #338.

As you now have acknowledged, Darat did not suggest that Bullough remained ignorant of the nature of the magazine. He speculated that he could have been.

I don’t see this as a productive use of my time, so if you have issue with my assertion that visiting a forum is not the same as working directly for an organization, you may explain what your objection is, and I will do my best to answer it.

In which case your criticism of Bullough is invalid.

That issue has already been addressed here, here and here. The answer has not changed, so I see no point in repeating myself.

The first and third link is you saying that you can be critical, without specifying what it is you criticize Prometheus of. The second link is Darat's post, not yours.

What, exactly, is it you are critical of?

Don’t know, don’t care. That’s outside the scope of our discussion.

It is very much inside the scope of our discussion. Answer the question, please.

I never claimed skeptics should stay away from the issue of pedophilia. I think staying away from supporting pedophilia is good advice for anyone.

But there is no evidence that Bullough was supportive of pedophilia. Do you think he would be with CSICOP if he was?

Again, that’s outside the scope of our discussion. The issues between us are if Steve had provided evidence of his claims (which he has, regardless of the conclusions you’re willing to draw from it) and if his claims included the assertion that CSICOP supports/condones pedophilia. Now if you want to provide evidence that Bullough does not support/condone pedophilia despite his ten year association with a pro-pedophilia publication, now would be a good time for you to do some work on your own and come up with some compelling information, but the time when you can just sit back and make demands of others is long past.

Hello? This whole discussion is nothing else but whether Bullough promotes/condones pedophilia. And now you say it is outside the scope of our discussion?

 

[Mycroft]

I asked you a question: Why isn't "PEDOPHILIA => PAIDIKA => BULLOUGH => CSICOP" an inference? Where does the link break? Does CSICOP not support Bullough? Does Bullough not promote pedophilia?

Asked and answered already.

As you now have acknowledged, Darat did not suggest that Bullough remained ignorant of the nature of the magazine. He speculated that he could have been.

Which is what I said.

In which case your criticism of Bullough is invalid.

That does not follow.

The first and third link is you saying that you can be critical, without specifying what it is you criticize Prometheus of. The second link is Darat's post, not yours.

What, exactly, is it you are critical of?

Asked and answered already, re-read the posts that were linked if you have more questions.

It is very much inside the scope of our discussion. Answer the question, please.

I disagree. If you want to change my mind about it’s relevance to our discussion, feel free to provide appropriate evidence.

But there is no evidence that Bullough was supportive of pedophilia. Do you think he would be with CSICOP if he was?

The evidence that Bullough was supportive of pedophilia is that he worked for a pro-pedophilia publication for ten years. You may argue that's not conclusive evidence, in that perhaps there may be some explanation for that other than Bullough supporting pedophilia, but it's simply not true to claim there is no evidence.

Bullough's association with CSICOP is not evidence one way or another, so that is irrelevent.

Hello? This whole discussion is nothing else but whether Bullough promotes/condones pedophilia. And now you say it is outside the scope of our discussion?

Our discussion, yours and mine, is if Steve had provided evidence of his claims (which he has, regardless of the conclusions you’re willing to draw from it) and if his claims included the assertion that CSICOP supports/condones pedophilia. If you want to continue to argue whether Bullough promotes/condones pedophilia, you will need a new dance-partner to take the opposing point of view.

 

[CFLarsen]

Asked and answered already.

That is a lie. But if you want to resort to that, instead of simply answering it, fine with me.

Which is what I said.

That is also a lie.

That does not follow.

Of course it does. If you can't list the conditions, how are we supposed to know what you mean? Duh.

Asked and answered already, re-read the posts that were linked if you have more questions.

That is also a lie. None of the links answer the question.

I disagree. If you want to change my mind about it’s relevance to our discussion, feel free to provide appropriate evidence.

Okie doke. If you don't want to answer the question, you don't want to answer it.

The evidence that Bullough was supportive of pedophilia is that he worked for a pro-pedophilia publication for ten years. You may argue that's not conclusive evidence, in that perhaps there may be some explanation for that other than Bullough supporting pedophilia, but it's simply not true to claim there is no evidence.

Bullough's association with CSICOP is not evidence one way or another, so that is irrelevent.

Of course it is relevant. That's what this thread is all about.

Our discussion, yours and mine, is if Steve had provided evidence of his claims (which he has, regardless of the conclusions you’re willing to draw from it) and if his claims included the assertion that CSICOP supports/condones pedophilia. If you want to continue to argue whether Bullough promotes/condones pedophilia, you will need a new dance-partner to take the opposing point of view.

If that's your way out of this, fine with me.

 

[Thanz]

CFLarsen:

But there is no evidence that Bullough was supportive of pedophilia. Do you think he would be with CSICOP if he was?

Mycroft

The evidence that Bullough was supportive of pedophilia is that he worked for a pro-pedophilia publication for ten years. You may argue that's not conclusive evidence, in that perhaps there may be some explanation for that other than Bullough supporting pedophilia, but it's simply not true to claim there is no evidence.

Bullough's association with CSICOP is not evidence one way or another, so that is irrelevent.

CFLarsen:

Of course it is relevant. That's what this thread is all about.

I suppose it is relevant to what implications we can make about CSICOP. But his association with CSICOP is not relevant to the issue of whether or not he supports pedophilia.

Your question:"Do you think he would be with CSICOP if he was?" seems to imply that CSICOP would end its association with him if he supported pedophilia. You are assuming that CSICOP would take a certain action if the allegation were true, which is assuming away what this thread is about.

Imagine if instead someone posted "Father Bill cannot be a pedophile. Do you think he would be with the Catholic Church if he was?"

 

[Mycroft]

That is a lie. But if you want to resort to that, instead of simply answering it, fine with me.

Okay, let’s ignore the rest and concentrate on this one issue for a moment. You’re claiming I have lied and I have not.

When I claimed you and I have already come to an agreement on that issue, I was referring to post #240, where I said:

”In my opinion, the answer is that it means nothing at all. There is no logical connection between the goals and ideology of CSICOP and the goals and ideology of one of its members in a completely different field.”

To which you replied in post #241:
” We agree on something.”

You can’t logically assert there is an inference while simultaneously claiming there is no logical connection. It makes no sense.

 

[Mycroft]

Shall I take CFLarson's non-answer as a concession of this point and an acknowledgement that I was correct in saying this point has been addressed already?

 

[CFLarsen]

Shall I take CFLarson's non-answer as a concession of this point and an acknowledgement that I was correct in saying this point has been addressed already?

Of course not. Where have you addressed this question:

Why isn't "PEDOPHILIA => PAIDIKA => BULLOUGH => CSICOP" an inference?

 

[Mycroft]

Of course not. Where have you addressed this question:

Why isn't "PEDOPHILIA => PAIDIKA => BULLOUGH => CSICOP" an inference?

You have already agreed that there is no logical connection between the goals and ideology of CSICOP and the goals and ideology of one of its members in a completely different field.

True or false?

 

[CFLarsen]

You have already agreed that there is no logical connection between the goals and ideology of CSICOP and the goals and ideology of one of its members in a completely different field.

True or false?

Where have you addressed this question:

Why isn't "PEDOPHILIA => PAIDIKA => BULLOUGH => CSICOP" an inference?

 

[Mycroft]

Where have you addressed this question:

Why isn't "PEDOPHILIA => PAIDIKA => BULLOUGH => CSICOP" an inference?

You have already agreed there is no logical connection between the goals and ideology of CSICOP and the goals and ideology of one of its members in a completely different field, therefore your assertion here that there is a connection is contradictory.

I don't need to resolve your contradiction.

 

[CFLarsen]

You have already agreed there is no logical connection between the goals and ideology of CSICOP and the goals and ideology of one of its members in a completely different field, therefore your assertion here that there is a connection is contradictory.

I don't need to resolve your contradiction.

No answer from you, then.

 

[hgc]

Where have you addressed this question:

Why isn't "PEDOPHILIA => PAIDIKA => BULLOUGH => CSICOP" an inference?

An inference of what?

 

[CFLarsen]

An inference of what?

Doesn't matter, for the time being.

Mycroft claims it isn't an inference. I want to know why, but he won't tell me.

 

[hgc]

Doesn't matter, for the time being.

Mycroft claims it isn't an inference. I want to know why, but he won't tell me.

Oh, you mean that the substance of the argument is irrelevant? That rhetorical gymnastics are all that matter?

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, you mean that the substance of the argument is irrelevant? That rhetorical gymnastics are all that matter?

I said "for the time being".

Unfortunately, it looks as if we have to take it one small step at a time.

 

[hgc]

I said "for the time being".

Unfortunately, it looks as if we have to take it one small step at a time.

OK, this is me, not Mycroft, asking. Inference of what?

 

[CFLarsen]

OK, this is me, not Mycroft, asking. Inference of what?

That CSICOP and pedophilia are closely connected.

Mind you, that's Steve's inference. If Mycroft cannot explain why the above isn't an inference, then he will have to explain why CSICOP and pedophilia are not closely connected.

 

[Darat]

That CSICOP and pedophilia are closely connected.

Mind you, that's Steve's inference. If Mycroft cannot explain why the above isn't an inference, then he will have to explain why CSICOP and pedophilia are not closely connected.

Don't forget all you are arguing is your own opinion about what can be inferred or not from Steve's post. This is not a matter, unless you can reduce the various statements made by Steve to pure logic and then show that there is a logical inference, of fact but of opinion.