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

[CFLarsen]

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.

It is not merely my opinion. Steve has been inferring this all through the thread.

 

[Darat]

It is not merely my opinion. Steve has been inferring this all through the thread.

That is your opinion and unless you can reduce Steve's statements to formal logic then you are not going to be able to prove your opinion is correct.

 

[CFLarsen]

That is your opinion and unless you can reduce Steve's statements to formal logic then you are not going to be able to prove your opinion is correct.

By all means:

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?

Pedophilia => Prometheus => Skeptics

It should be a monologue since this is clearly a derail for which I already apologized. However keep perusing the catalogue ... especially the sexual autobiographies. And while I do not object to a clinical literature on the subject of sexual deviance which is the defense for these titles, please tell me how a huge multi volume guide to pornographic videos has any redeeming academic value or what scientific purpose it serves. I am told by a person investigating this matter that it includes titles depicting deviant behavior and reviews these. The editor of this section of the Prometheus catalogue, a former SUNY Buffalo professor who is no longer teaching and has moved to California, was a consultant to Paidika (search the term) for ten years.

Pedophilia => Paidika => Bullough => Prometheus

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.

Pedophilia => Prometheus

Here is a list of CSICOP Fellows along with its URL. Hold this aside for a few hours as there is more to follow.....also see questions at the end.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
**Does this mean that they may be incorrect?

***Does this mean this person is at ALL SUNY campuses throughout the state or none at all since all SUNY campuses identify themselves as "SUNY-someplace" e.g. SUNY-Buffalo, SUNY-Stoney Brook, etc.

Bullough => CSICOP

First things first. I was addressing your comments regarding the late Professor Vern Bullough. Prof. Bullough died on June 21st in California.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/us/03bullough.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

He was a CSICOP Fellow and during the years he was in that position while teaching medical history at SUNY-Buffalo he was also a consultant to the Dutch pro-pedophilia journal called Paidika. His resume clearly points this out.

Professor Bullough also was the editor who developed Prometheus' books on sexually related "science" which included sexual autobiographies, titles such as given above and their porno video catalogue running to 7, I think 8 volumes.

In answer to your specific question, I have not read any of this trash but I have reviewed the reviews and descriptions of many nof these titles and anyone is welcome to do the same.

CV of a CSICOP Fellow:

http://www.vernbullough.com/bullough/activities/editorial.html

Here is an interview from the magazine for which the Distiguished Professor was a member of its editorial board for a decade.

...

The fact is for many years after having left SUNY Buffalo, Professor Bullough was not at SUNY but was advertised as such by CSICOP for "the purposes of identification." His most recent teaching assignments are chronicled in the Times obituary so I fail to understand why CSICOP shouldn't have used these to identify him.

Professor Bullough is gone now but his legacy at Prometheus Books lives on. I remain comitted to the position that the books listed above are way out of step, way out of character for a publisher such as Prometheus and can only ponder why they are projects of this otherwise venerable publishing effort.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Pedophilia => Paidika => Bullough => CSICOP

It is the same person. He has recently passed away and I have been aware of his battle with cancer for awhile so I wasn't really interested in pursuing this but Claus' behavior forced me to do so.

Here is the URL for his CV:

http://www.vernbullough.com/bullough/VITA-1-April-2006.doc

Here is an excerpt from what is otherwise a highly distinguished career. The exception is his support and work for Paidika. He also worked for Paul Kurtz at Prometheus to shepherd many of the titles editorially and through publication which in response to requests from RandFan and Larsen I was
also compelled to forward here.

Pedophilia => Paidika => Bullough => Prometheus => Kurtz

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.

Pedophilia => Paidika => Bullough => Prometheus => CSICOP

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.

Pedophilia => Paidika => Bullough => Kurtz => CSICOP

That's just within the first 100 posts.

 

[Mycroft]

No answer from you, then.

You simply refuse to acknowledge the answer.

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.

Now kindly withdraw your claim that I have not answered your question or explain how this does not answer your question.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Why would I have to explain that?



What you could do is some independent research to find some evidence to exonerate Bullough.

 

[CFLarsen]

What you could do is some independent research to find some evidence to exonerate Bullough.

Exonerate? What are you accusing him of? Why should he be "exonerated"?

 

[SteveGrenard]

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.

I certainly agree with Joshua's statement above.

I return briefly to this thread to deny the inference that I was inferring that CSICOP condones or glorifies pedophilia. I provided evidence of individuals who do that, one of whom was (now deceased) a CSICOP Fellow and evidence that one of the co-founders owns a publishing company which publishes one or more titles that may condone or defend pedophilia in some manner in my opinion. I refer to the late John Money’s Kaspar Hauser book advocating “affectionate stimulation” of the skin senses as the cure-all/preventative for arrested mental development. We have seen an account of (in this thread) his testimony before Congress on this subject which deals with young male monkeys, er, stimulating each others skin senses as his justification. I am a Steve Gould follower and a firm believer in evolution and sincerely believe that as humans we have evolved past the monkey stage of both social and mental development.


As a matter of record, here is the sum total of CSICOP's involvement with the subject of pedophilia I could find in a spate of SI articles from 1999 through 2001:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_25/ai_76881182


http://www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:58545660


http://www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:68966522


http://www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:58545660

Please do not infer anything from this other than a simple presentation of the facts.

Why the subject should be of interest at all to CSICOP is mystifying but there is a fairly extensive overview of CSICOP, and its history and future plans (in 1992) that may shed some light on this. Clearly CSICOP has become involved in subject matter which goes way beyond what we normally think of as the paranormal and this is discussed in the following:

CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview

GEORGE P. HANSEN
_________________________________

ABSTRACT: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) has become the most publicly visible institution engaged in the debate on the paranormal. Initially CSICOP was primarily a scholarly body, but soon after its beginning it adopted a popular approach that fostered a more broadly based social movement. It actively promoted the formation of local societies with similar aims. Both CSICOP and the local groups have some distinguishing features. Prestigious scholars are affiliated with these organizations, a disproportionate number of magicians are involved, the groups are dominated by men, and many members hold religious views that are antagonistic to the paranormal. Despite the name of the organization, actual research is a very low priority of the Committee. In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing research itself. CSICOP's highest priority has been to influence the media. Its rhetoric and activities are designed to appeal to a broad audience rather than to scientists who investigate unusual or controversial phenomena. Recently, the Committee broadened its focus to include areas outside the paranormal.

The entire article can be found here and is probably worth reading as is a sample chapter from Hansen’s book The Trickster and the Paranormal:

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm

 

[CFLarsen]

I return briefly to this thread to deny the inference that I was inferring that CSICOP condones or glorifies pedophilia.

And yet, in the first 100 posts in this thread, you make these inferences, as evidenced in post #383:

Pedophilia => Prometheus => Skeptics

Pedophilia => Paidika => Bullough => Prometheus

Pedophilia => Prometheus

Bullough => CSICOP

Pedophilia => Paidika => Bullough => CSICOP

Pedophilia => Paidika => Bullough => Prometheus => Kurtz

Pedophilia => Paidika => Bullough => Prometheus => CSICOP

Pedophilia => Paidika => Bullough => Kurtz => CSICOP

It is OK to admit that you were wrong to make the inference, Steve. But don't lie about making it. You did make the inference. Many times.

 

[Matthew Best]

I don't think you can know that he inferred something or other without him saying positively that he did.

It occurs to me that you may mean that he implied something.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't think you can know that he inferred something or other without him saying positively that he did.

It occurs to me that you may mean that he implied something.

Call it what you like. Steve has been very busy in this thread (and elsewhere) trying to make it look as if skeptics condone, justify and glorify pedophilia.

 

[Matthew Best]

Call it what you like.

Thanks, but I don't really have a dog in this fight, so I won't call it anything.

I was just trying to point to a possible source of confusion between the two of you. The words "imply" and "infer" mean two different things - he may well have known what you intended to say, but decided to respond to what you actually said (but didn't mean). I don't know.

 

[hgc]

Call it what you like. Steve has been very busy in this thread (and elsewhere) trying to make it look as if skeptics condone, justify and glorify pedophilia.

Yeah? And so what if he did? Is he saying something about skepticism as a way of thinking? Or is he saying something about CSICOP? Any skeptics who care about CSICOP should be screaming from the rooftops that someone who served on staff at Paidika for 10 years should not be on the board of CSICOP -- instead of running along for 10 pages of a thread shooting scattershot at the messenger.

 

[SteveGrenard]

(sigh) from wordreference dot com on the term "inference":

psychological feature
╚cognition; knowledge; noesis ╚process; cognitive process; mental process; operation; cognitive operation ╚higher cognitive process ╚thinking; thought; cerebration; intellection; mentation ╚reasoning; logical thinking; abstract thought

Hence you cannot possibly know what I am or am not inferring unless you claim to be a telepath. You can infer anything you want from the information presented. In response, I reiterate that any inferences made were yours and yours alone. Readers of information make inferences, reporters ("messengers" if you like)of the information do not unless they so state.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yeah? And so what if he did? Is he saying something about skepticism as a way of thinking? Or is he saying something about CSICOP? Any skeptics who care about CSICOP should be screaming from the rooftops that someone who served on staff at Paidika for 10 years should not be on the board of CSICOP --

You are free to do what you want. Have you contacted CSICOP and told them how you feel?

instead of running along for 10 pages of a thread shooting scattershot at the messenger.

I am not shooting scattershot at the messenger. I am pointing out that this is yet another attempt of Steve's to cast suspicion on skeptics. And yes, I can back that up with many examples. You want to see them?

 

[Darat]

The original topic discussion appears to have come to an end therefore I have closed this moderated thread. The new topic posts can be found in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60390

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat