At the risk of being accused of bickering which is what you are doing
In which case I await the mod's ruling on your complaint. Surely, you cannot accuse me of bickering without reporting me - the same offense that got you suspended.
If you won't report me, I'll report myself.
, I have backed up my claim to the extent I am willing to in this forum and provided a direct quote from the Prometheus website.
I'm sorry, but it is not a question of whether you
want to back up your claim or not. This is a forum for skeptics. Either you back up your claim, or you admit that you can't back up your claim with evidence. It's that simple.
You may be badgering me to break Rule#1 but I will not and the moderators may consider this an official complaint of said badgering.
If you think I am badgering you to break rule #1, I urge you to report me to the moderators.
John Money is well known for his agenda elsewhere.
Not to me. Please state what he is known for elsewhere, and provide evidence.
I will provide additional examples in the days ahead if necessary. We have already seen what Paidika really is and now must stop to wonder what a person with a decade long association as a consultant for them must really believe.
While you find evidence of your claims, I'll repost the questions for you here:
Where do you see that Prometheus condones pedophilia in that "blurb"?
Where is your evidence that "skin senses" is a "code term used in the scientific study of pedophilia"?
If everything Prometheus do is legal, how can they promote pedophilia? Pedophilia is illegal.
If everything Prometheus do is legal, you can't possibly criticize them. Agree?
You have not been able to back up your claim with evidence. Your claim is unfounded. Your claim is baseless. Agree?
Why do you think a baseless claim carries any weight on a forum for skepticism? Why should we even consider your claim, if you are not able to back it up with evidence?
Do you think it would be a good idea to do your homework and have your evidence ready, before you post your accusations?
Bullough was a consultant to Paidika but apparently was the editor of the Journal of Paedophilia as well.
Huh? You take the opinion of someone as evidence? Do you know who Reisman is?
Judith A. Reisman is the president of Restoring Social Virtue & Purity to America (RSVPAmerica) that distributes material that criticises modern sexual viewpoints and sex education based on Alfred Kinsey's work. She also lobbies against pornography, and alleges that there is a large-scale effort by "establishment media" to "recruit" children into homosexuality. Since the late 1980s, she has extensively criticized Kinsey and the Kinsey Reports. Her publications have been frequently distributed and funded by conservative organizations, and used as arguments to reduce funding for sexology, which, Reisman claims, is not really a science but a cover for pro-homosexual/pedophile campaigners to obtain funding.
Source
Yeah. I
check. She's a modern-day Comstock.
Can you please point to Paedika's own list of editors, instead of relying on the opinion of someone else who clearly has a very biased view on this?
Just because something is legal does not make it right. There are lines beyond which we won't cross because we have morals and ethics,not just lawyers.
Indeed. But who draw those moral and ethic lines? You? If so, what do you base your decision on? Who gives you the right to determine what is right or wrong?
He may be unbiased. He may also be of the opinion that it's possible for men to have healthy sexual relationships with children. He may also be of the opinion that it is not. We don't know yet.
I didn't ask what he was. I asked if you think it is possible - perhaps even desirable - to be able to at least strive for an unbiased view, especially if you are an academic?
Do you?
It's not about being rabidly anti-pedophilia. It's about giving serious consideration to something as a scholarly journal when it has articles written by pedophiles.
A journal that is dedicated to
documenting pedophilia? Doesn't that mean that you have to include pro-pedophilia works as well?
Exactly. At first look it appeared that this journal was 100% on the up-and-up. In light of the new evidence I've changed my mind.
What, exactly, is that new evidence?
No, not
titles of articles. Evidence that the journal
supports pedophilia.
