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

[Mr. Skinny]

Thanks,

Pedophilia is one of those issues that is very difficult to view in a dispassionate way. I find it very hard. Like most people I connect it with kidnapping, abuse and rape. Since I think it difficult for most minors to give conformed consent I find the notion of all pedophilia acceptable.

That said, any researcher or clinician in the field should be able to look at this issue dispassionately.

As distasteful and disturbing as I may find it -

1.) It is possible for a man to fantasize about sex with children without being a threat to children.

2.) Such fantasies alone are not indicative of pathology.

3.) It is possible for a minor and an adult to have sexual relations that are not harmful to the child.

That being said, let's keep sexual relations between consenting adults.

bolding mine



RandFan, I think you need to do an edit to read "informed" consent and "unacceptable"

 

[DanishDynamite]

No. Being a consultant is by definition supporting.

As a consultant of more than 15 years, I can unequivocally state that the statement above is absolute bollocks.

Do you know what a consultant is, Luke?

 

[CFLarsen]

For every point of view, there is an opposing one and here are two columns which refute the notion that Paidika et al and their "movement" is not anything but an organization/movement that condones and excuses pedophilia and seeks to normalize and decriminalize it which, of course, is their privilege. The scientific literature created by the ruminations of “sex researchers” is believed to be junk science by many in the mainstream.

You can agree or not agree with them.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16148

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16072

Yes, we can. However, you are not addressing Vern Bullough's own words. Why not?

Facts or what’s true and what’s not, obviously, will be difficult to come by in this debate.

No, Steve. The evidence is very clear: You were wrong.

I personally am also entitled to a point of view which squares with the notion that Prometheus should not be publishing porn while masquerading as a serious and scholarly publishing house and which happens to be a private firm that draws heavily on the resources of SUNY Buffalo, a public university, through the connections of its owner, Paul Kurtz.

Nobody is disputing your rights to hold fallacious opinions.

Their roots and philosophy obviously go deep, and by association were allied with the work of the late Vern Bullough who , I am sure, by no mere coincidence, happened to be rewarded with a CSICOP Fellowship.

"Rewarded"? There you go again, insinuating that Bullough is rewarded with a position among skeptics because of his affiliation with Paedika.

Not only are you, yet again, trying to discredit skeptics in general, you also piss on a dead man's reputation. How do you live with yourself, Steve?

Some of you said you have no problem w/Prometheus publishing porn. For myself,my objection earns me attacks by Claus Larsen,no longer a taxpayor in New York State.

What in the blue ◊◊◊◊ does that have to do with anything? Is there no limit to your insane ramblings?

On the subject of the false memory syndrome and its organization, sure, planted false memories, hypnotic or otherwise, are a terrible thing but this organization also tries to mitigate the tragedy of child molestation by saying most of it is based on faulty memories or exaggerations. I think the most egregious cases are more than that, they are outright fabrications of adults trying to exact monetary settlements, a phenomenon
nowhere more apparent than in the thousands of pedophile priest accusation cases we have heard about over the past ten years or so. Yet the fms people
have done nothing to investigate or study the accused priests or their accusers which means they operate on a dichotomous double-standard.

Your dishonesty knows no limits, I see. You desperately try to paint FMS as an extortion scheme. There is no limit to your insane ramblings.

I have presented the evidence asked for.
The list of suspect Prometheus publications.

"Suspect"? In your own, twisted mind, sure.

The Paidika connection to the late Prof. Bullough

Nobody has been trying to hide that.

The CSCIOP connection to the late Prof. Bullough

Nobody has been trying to hide that.

The Prometheus/CSICOP connection.

Nobody has been trying to hide that.

The Prometheus connection to Prof. Bullough

Nobody has been trying to hide that.

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.

Nobody has been goading you, Steve. You have constantly brought up this accusation of yours, and, when called on it, it turns out that you were wrong. Bullough is not supporting pedophilia.

And where is that evidence that Prometheus publishes books that justify, glorify and condone pedophilia? Not forthcoming? Empty accusations, yet again from you?

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.

I can understand why you want to leave this alone. You have been proven wrong. Time will tell if you accept the evidence, or you prefer to continue your ongoing quest to discredit skeptics, no matter how wrong you are.

I predict that Steve will not admit he was wrong.

Damn. I sure was right.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Then you are/were a sh*tty consultant. Period.

You are obviously talking about things of which you know nothing at all.

A consultant's job, aside from being an expert in his field, is to give the best advice possible to his client. The best advice is sometimes in tune with the current plans of the client, in which case the client is happy, but often it isn't. It's still the best advice.

Try and get a working experience of the real world, Jocko.

 

[RandFan]

bolding mine



RandFan, I think you need to do an edit to read "informed" consent and "unacceptable"

I think I need to wait until evening before I start to drink or at least not respond to serious subject matter while tipsy.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I think I need to wait until evening before I start to drink or at least not respond to serious subject matter while tipsy.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I'd like to suggest DD (or?) make a separate thread for the "morality of working for those we don't agree with" issue.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I'd like to suggest DD (or?) make a separate thread for the "morality of working for those we don't agree with" issue.

I'd like to suggest that you mind your own business!

Okay, jokes aside, I really don't understand how my questions suddenly require a new thread. Are my answers so deviant from the OP that such a split is obviously necessary? (Luke and Jocko don't need to answer!)

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Well, I was just thinking it might be an entirely different subject.

For instance, I work for the Air Force. I'm a Safety Engineer. I can think to myself "I'm helping people not get hurt in the lab, or helping them not fly an aircraft into the ground".....or, I can think " I'm supporting the DoD of the USA. They go to war. They kill people.

Obviously, I've chosen to work for them. Does it make me a bad person? Or immoral?

Dunno. Just thought it might be an interesting thread.

 

[clk]

No, that's not namecalling. It's stating a fact.

And you're an idiot. That's not namecalling. It's a fact.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Well, I was just thinking it might be an entirely different subject.

For instance, I work for the Air Force. I'm a Safety Engineer. I can think to myself "I'm helping people not get hurt in the lab, or helping them not fly an aircraft into the ground".....or, I can think " I'm supporting the DoD of the USA. They go to war. They kill people.

Obviously, I've chosen to work for them. Does it make me a bad person? Or immoral?

Dunno. Just thought it might be an interesting thread.

Got it.

In the sense you mention, yes I think a new thread would probably be in order.

But I don't think my answers were so narrow that this (otherwise very interesting) split would be necessary.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I wasn't picking on you in particular, DD. CFL's morals? had been questioned regarding his consultant work, and I think it could become a major derail.

Just keep the thought in the back of your head.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I wasn't picking on you in particular, DD. CFL's morals? had been questioned regarding his consultant work, and I think it could become a major derail.

Just keep the thought in the back of your head.

No problem.

I'll try and stay in the background. But if the word "consultant" is mentioned again, ....

 

[BPSCG]

As a consultant of more than 15 years, I can unequivocally state that the statement above is absolute bollocks.

Do you know what a consultant is, Luke?

I think y'all are working with two different understandings of "support" here, so you're talking past each other.

I support Denmark in their fight against Islamist attempts to censure what their magazines can print. Does that mean I am sending Danish magazines money or volunteering to work as an armed guard at their print shops? No.

I support some stupid local charity by giving them ten bucks when my neighbor comes knocking at my door. Do I have any particular warm spot for the charity? No. Do I want to give them ten bucks? No. But I do so as a favor to my neighbor.

In the first case, my support is strictly in my head; I don't actually do anything constructive other than that.

In the second case, my support is tangible, although my mental support is nonexistent.

If the contracting company you work for assigns you a job doing something constructive for a client you don't like, you are supporting that client with your hands, even though you may not support the client's business goals in your heart.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I think y'all are working with two different understandings of "support" here, so you're talking past each other.

I support Denmark in their fight against Islamist attempts to censure what their magazines can print. Does that mean I am sending Danish magazines money or volunteering to work as an armed guard at their print shops? No.

Glad we cleared up your level of support.

I support some stupid local charity by giving them ten bucks when my neighbor comes knocking at my door. Do I have any particular warm spot for the charity? No. Do I want to give them ten bucks? No. But I do so as a favor to my neighbor.

Cool. (I won't get into the level of spine this displays.)

In the first case, my support is strictly in my head; I don't actually do anything constructive other than that.

I understand.

In the second case, my support is tangible, although my mental support is nonexistent.

I understand.

If the contracting company you work for assigns you a job doing something constructive for a client you don't like, you are supporting that client with your hands, even though you may not support the client's business goals in your heart.

Not sure I understand. My job is always the same, no matter what client I'm working for.

 

[Checkmite]

after doing a bit of research I've come to the conclusion that Vern Bullough was a sex researcher and certainly not a pedophile or a promoter of child abuse or pedophilia.

After reading Bullough's article, I am convinced that he is not a promoter of pedophilia. I'll insist, however, this article and others I have lately read do nothing to convince me that his opinion that pedophiles are "quite normal people" who are "unfairly demonized" is anything approaching correct. I suppose that makes me one of those folks, according to his article, "who believe a wife's place is in the home, not the market place; that contraception and abortion are immoral; that only married couples should enjoy sex; that divorce is sinful; and that homosexuality, lesbianism, transgenderism and even sex education are all major threats to the well being and to the religious beliefs of society." Whatever.

CSICOP and Prometheus are back on the level with me. Bullough is not, but he's dead, so it's not as if it matters.

 

[Darat]

To all the current participants.

Stop this endless bickering about each other.

Either debate the issues appropriate to this section and not your opinions about each other or don't post here at all, and if you can't stop yourself posting about your opinion of others I will do it for you by suspensions.

Anyone continuing from this point on bickering about each other, no matter what sophistry is attempted to disguise it, will be suspended for 3 days from the entire forum and for at least a week from this section.

This seemingly childish and counter productive bickering will end one way or another.

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

Please note - I have indicated this thread is a moderated thread (11/7) and because of the feedback from my original actions I will now consider other options rather then suspending Members - these may include editing, deleting or moving posts.

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

 

[CFLarsen]

Let's sum up:

• Despite earlier claims, there has been no evidence that any part of Prometheus' publishing program includes books that justify, glorify or condone pedophilia or bestiality.
  
  
• Despite earlier claims, there is no evidence Vernon Bullogh in any way supported pedophilia. Quite contrary:
  
  

  Vern Bullough
  accepts the conclusions of Wilson & Cox (1983) that people with pedophilic feelings are quite normal people who not should be demonized. Some behavior might be socially incorrect, but that is not the same as pathological. As long as these people limit themselves to have fantasies, nothing is wrong. If some people have to change their behavior, this is a case of re-educating those people, not of treatment or curing an illness.
  Source

• Despite earlier claims, there is no evidence that Vernon Bullough was rewarded with a position among skeptics because of his affiliation with Paedika.
  
  
• Despite earlier claims, there is no evidence that the False Memory Syndrome organization tries to mitigate the tragedy of child molestation by saying most of it is based on faulty memories or exaggerations.
  
  
• Despite earlier claims, there is no evidence that the Dutch journal Paidika is pro-pedophilia, or it its objective to "normalize" and decriminalize child molestation in society.
  
  

  Paidika is a scholarly journal which seeks to examine the range of cultural, historical, psychological, and literary issues pertaining to consensual adult-child sexual relationships and desires. The Journal is attempting to create a 'history of record'. The Journal is subject to academic peer-review and is subscribed to by prestigious institutions such as the British Library and by the Library of Congress.
  Source

There are therefore no valid reasons to criticize Prometheus, Vernon Bullough or CSICOP.

 

[Q-Source]

False Memory Syndrome is a legitimate problem. There have been all kinds of instances in the past; what's on trial in such a case is not the victim's claim of abuse, it's where that claim originated. If somebody wakes from a hypnotic therapy session "suddenly" remembering all kinds of abuse they hadn't even thought about suspecting previously, there could be a problem. Hypnotism is notoriously unreliable. The FMSF testifies only in cases where it's probable that a victim's spontaneous recollection of being abused by every adult in an entire neighborhood (for a not-unrealistic example) may have been planted by a negligent therapist.

I don't have a problem with the purpose of the FMSF, but it is looks fishy that two people who clearly endorse and justify paedophile were behind this foundation.
Do you understand that it is its role to question children's statements regarding sexual abuse?. At the end, they are not just attacking therapists and hypnoptic sessions, they are putting in question children's claims about sexual abuse (and demanding extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims). This would be fair if it didn't happen that Wakefield is pro-paedophile, why can't you understand my point?

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't have a problem with the purpose of the FMSF, but it is looks fishy that two people who clearly endorse and justify paedophile were behind this foundation.
Do you understand that it is its role to question children's statements regarding sexual abuse?. At the end, they are not just attacking therapists and and hypnotic sessions, they are putting in question children's claims about sexual abuse. This would be fair if it didn't happen that Wakefield is pro-paedophile, why can't you understand my point?

I'm sorry, but could you explain where you see that the two endorse and justify pedophilia?