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

[TragicMonkey]

That's unfair.

There doesn't seem to be a website for the journal, so it has proven difficult to find contact information. It's not particularly easy to find a copy, if we don't have that info. Additionally, it is a Dutch paper, quite possibly with a small circulation.

What we have found, however, strongly supports the notion that it is not a pro-pedophilia journal, but a journal for documenting pedophilia. There are lots of opinions abound that claims otherwise, but what we have from Paedika itself does not support the idea.

So don't say that nobody has checked. That's simply not correct.

Oh, dear, all the answers aren't readily available? So I guess we'll just have to accept hearsay evidence and supposition. That's good skepticism, that is.

Or maybe, in view of the lack of the primary source for examination, everybody should withhold passing judgments? "I don't know yet" is a perfectly acceptable skeptical response. If you want to pursue it further, you'll have to exert some effort. If not, fine, but don't build up huge edifices of speculation when there's a surefire, certain, and proper way to get at the facts.

 

[Darat]

Have to agree with TM here - I'm on the fence regarding the actual nature of this journal, there seems some support to both ideas of what it is but at the moment I would say given the evidence we have we shouldn't draw any firm conclusions.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, dear, all the answers aren't readily available? So I guess we'll just have to accept hearsay evidence and supposition. That's good skepticism, that is.

Or maybe, in view of the lack of the primary source for examination, everybody should withhold passing judgments? "I don't know yet" is a perfectly acceptable skeptical response. If you want to pursue it further, you'll have to exert some effort. If not, fine, but don't build up huge edifices of speculation when there's a surefire, certain, and proper way to get at the facts.

It is a rare case when we have all the answers readily available. Skeptics reach conclusions all the time, without even primary sources. Conclusion, ever so provisional. But, even with primary sources, aren't all our conclusions provisional?

I think all this commotion is due to the subject itself. Pedophilia is a very touchy subject, probably the most of all. But we should be careful not to equate those who write about it with those who advocate it.

There's too much knne-jerk reaction here. "The publication is about pedophilia, so it has to be pro-pedophilia". Even though it is a scholarly publication, they should come clean and state, every other paragraph, that it is bad, bad, bad! If they don't, THEN THEY MUST BE PRO-PEDOPHILIA!!

That's not good skepticism.

Here's a little thought experiment: Read back, but substitute "pedophilia" with "rape". Given what has been offered as references, would people have come to the same conclusion: That "the publication is about rape, so it has to be pro-rape"?

I doubt that. Seriously.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It is a rare case when we have all the answers readily available. Skeptics reach conclusions all the time, without even primary sources. Conclusion, ever so provisional. But, even with primary sources, aren't all our conclusions provisional?

If you wish to argue about the nature of knowledge then I suppose you can. I don't see the point in going there, when the journal apparently exists, is in print, and thus is available for review.

I think all this commotion is due to the subject itself. Pedophilia is a very touchy subject, probably the most of all. But we should be careful not to equate those who write about it with those who advocate it.

There's too much knne-jerk reaction here. "The publication is about pedophilia, so it has to be pro-pedophilia". Even though it is a scholarly publication, they should come clean and state, every other paragraph, that it is bad, bad, bad! If they don't, THEN THEY MUST BE PRO-PEDOPHILIA!!

That's not good skepticism.

You're probably right about that, but I'm not arguing whether this particular journal is for or against pedophilia. I'm suggesting that nobody who hasn't read the thing has any standing to make such claims.

Here's a little thought experiment: Read back, but substitute "pedophilia" with "rape". Given what has been offered as references, would people have come to the same conclusion: That "the publication is about rape, so it has to be pro-rape"?

I doubt that. Seriously.

The ickier the subject, the more likely that even the most impartial of studies of the subject will be tarred with that ickiness.

 

[CFLarsen]

The ickier the subject, the more likely that even the most impartial of studies of the subject will be tarred with that ickiness.

Really?

Do you have examples?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Really?

Do you have examples?

The study of pedophilia springs to mind.

 

[CFLarsen]

The study of pedophilia springs to mind.

Can I see the examples?

 

[Checkmite]

Have to agree with TM here - I'm on the fence regarding the actual nature of this journal, there seems some support to both ideas of what it is but at the moment I would say given the evidence we have we shouldn't draw any firm conclusions.

I haven't drawn any firm conclusions; I've merely formed an impression which is subject to change should change prove warranted.

 

[Checkmite]

There's too much knne-jerk reaction here. "The publication is about pedophilia, so it has to be pro-pedophilia".

Is this what you truly believe I'm thinking?

 

[CFLarsen]

Is this what you truly believe I'm thinking?

I'm not discussing persons.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Can I see the examples?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you're asking for examples of my stated principle that the ickiness of a subject will taint the study of it, then this very thread is itself an example of that principle.

 

[Checkmite]

I'm not discussing persons.

Right; you're discussing what you believe people are thinking. But if nobody in this thread is thinking that way, why does that line of thought matter?

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you're asking for examples of my stated principle that the ickiness of a subject will taint the study of it, then this very thread is itself an example of that principle.

I am asking to see examples of even the most impartial of studies that will be tarred with the ickiness of the subject.

You can choose pedophilia, if you like. As impartial as you can find.

 

[CFLarsen]

Right; you're discussing what you believe people are thinking. But if nobody in this thread is thinking that way, why does that line of thought matter?

If you think it doesn't matter, then I don't see why you bring it up.

 

[Checkmite]

If you think it doesn't matter, then I don't see why you bring it up.

You brought it up, actually. And I didn't say I thought it didn't matter, I'm asking you why you think it does.

 

[CFLarsen]

You brought it up, actually. And I didn't say I thought it didn't matter, I'm asking you why you think it does.

I already explained it. Post #163.

I can't say it any clearer than in that post.

 

[Checkmite]

You said "there's too much knee jerk reaction here". By here, I presume you mean this thread. You then define what you believe the knee-jerk reaction is, but I don't see anybody applying that line of reasoning in this thread. So your mentioning it is like me suddenly posting here about why Miracle Whip is better than mayonnaise. It doesn't make sense.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I am asking to see examples of even the most impartial of studies that will be tarred with the ickiness of the subject.

You can choose pedophilia, if you like. As impartial as you can find.

I don't know how I can explain this better. This one. People are having an "ick factor" reaction to the idea of the existence of this particular journal. Ickiness is a personal opinion, and the personal opinions of several in this thread seems to be that this journal is icky.

If you're asking for a specific study located within the journal, I can't help you. I don't have a copy, either.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't know how I can explain this better. This one. People are having an "ick factor" reaction to the idea of the existence of this particular journal. Ickiness is a personal opinion, and the personal opinions of several in this thread seems to be that this journal is icky.

But you weren't talking about the journal, but the studies in the journal. This thread can hardly be called a "study", and certainly not an impartial one.

If you're asking for a specific study located within the journal, I can't help you. I don't have a copy, either.

In which case your claim that even the most impartial of studies will be tarred with the ickiness of the subject is not supported by evidence.

 

[TragicMonkey]

But you weren't talking about the journal, but the studies in the journal. This thread can hardly be called a "study", and certainly not an impartial one.



In which case your claim that even the most impartial of studies will be tarred with the ickiness of the subject is not supported by evidence.

Dear me, I wasn't attempting to point out a specific article in the journal. I was speaking in generalities. And yes, by "study" I meant the whole journal.

Given the subjectiveness of "ickiness", I'd say the whole thing is sheer opinion, anyway. I apologize for daring to venture one. Please, go back to your pontifications and judgments of a publication you haven't read.